Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/04/2014

Home

October 25, 2014 ( Volume 8 ( Issue 20 Zoning Bulletin on the field of public education, including the City's zoning ordinances. Asking the court to find no material issues of fact in dispute and to decide the matter on the law alone, each party asked the court to issue summary judgment in their favor alone. The trial court concluded that the bleacher project was subject to the City's zoning and stoiiiiwater ordinances. The Board appealed. It contended that the court's ruling repre- sented an unconstitutional infringement on the Board's and the Superintendent's power. DECISION: Judgment of circuit court affirmed. The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, disagreed with the Board's arguments. As a matter of apparent first impression (i.e., the first time courts in Illinois addressed the issue), the court held that constitutional provisions tasking state government with provi- sion of public education did not preclude enforcement of municipal zoning ordinances against school districts and boards of education. The court also held that under the Zoning Change Provision of the Illinois School Code (105 ILCS 5/10-22.13a), the Board must fol- low the requirements of the City's zoning ordinances. The court concluded that the Board was subject to the City's zoning ordinances. In so holding, the court analyzed the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and its various constitutional provisions dealing with education, school districts, and home -rule units and their powers. The court found several constitutional provisions that suggested that, in the case of conflict between a home -rule unit and a school district, "there [was] a slight bias toward the home -rule unit." The court also found that the Constitution was "careful to emphasize the limited authority of school districts." The court found that, unlike a home - rule unit, the powers of which are subject only to an express preemp- tion by the legislature, a school district's powers are only those be- stowed by the legislature. The court also noted the express constitutional recognition that a school district is by definition not a municipality. The court concluded that, contrary to the Board's argument, the "[C]onstitution's treatment of public education [did] not raise the priority and powers of [public education] institutions above those of home -rule units." Rather, the court acknowledged, the Constitution simply prohibited a home -rule unit from enacting ordinances that infringed upon the realm of public education (but, importantly, not the realm of a school district). In rejecting the Board's argument that the School Code trumped 10 © 2014 Thomson Reuters