Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/1995

Home

Page 6 -- April 1995 Z.B. ~ Conditional Use -- City Puts Restrictions on Youth Offender Home's Permit Halfway House v. City of Waukegan, 641 N.E.2d 1005 (Illinois) 1994 Community Correction Services Inc., known as Halfway House, wanted to build and operate a residential rehabilitation center for juvenile offenders in the city of Waukegan, Ill. It asked the city to rezone the property from its cur- rent zoning to a residential zone that allowed residential rehab centers as con- ditional uses: Halfway House also applied for a conditional use permit for a facility that would house 46 residents. All residents were referred to Halfway House by the Department of Cor- rections' juvenile division. Halfway House carefullY screened prospective resi- . dents. It did not admit violent youths, or those with poor attitudes, strong gang affiliations, or mental or substance abuse problems. Residents were constantly supervised by at least one staff member, and could only leave with permission to go to work, to run errands, or to visit family and friends. After a public hearing, the city development commission recommended denying the request, ..which the city council did. Halfway House appealed. The court found Halfway House's proposed use reasonable, and ordered the ci.ty ~t0 grant the rezoning and the conditional use permit..The court also found the City could impose reasonable restrictions on Halfway House's use bf the property. However, the city cm/ld ndt dompletely prohibit the use. After more public hearings, the city'development board proposed 14 con- ditions on Halfway HouSe's conditional use permit. 'The city council ~ranted the permit with those Conditions. ' Halfway House asked the court' to strike down fiVe of the conditions~ argu- ing they violated the court's order. The court declared four of the conditions invalid. The city appealed, claiming three of the conditions did not violate the earlier court order. The conditions were: a limitation on the number of resi- dents to 32 instead of 46; a prohibition on any juveniles convicted of sexual offenses from living in the house; and a provision that allowed the'city to re- voke the permit 14 days after no. tifying Halfway House that it violated a li~ted condition. The city claimed the court's order unduly interfered with the city's legislative authority to impose reasonable Conditions on permits. DECISION: Affirmed in part and returned to the' trial court." The dity could impose conditions on special uses that were reasonably nec- essary to protect the'public welfare and did not violate the court order. There- fore, thk city could impose a maximum resident limit, as long as this'condition was otherwise reasonable. A trial was needed to determine if a maximum resi- dent limit of 32 was reasonable. However, the. city could not tell Halfway House to ban ail juveniles convicted of sex crimes, because the condition was too vague. It also could not provide for revocation of the p~rmit after a 14-day notice. Restricting the number of residents in a halfway house was reasonably nec- essary to protect the public welfare, so this regulation would not violate the