Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/04/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 25, 2014 ( Volume 8 I Issue 20 City zoning ordinances, the court pointed to the "Zoning Change Provision" of the School Code. That provision provides that "it is the local school board that is empowered and required '[t]o seek zoning changes, variations, or special uses for property held or con- trolled by the school district.' " (105 ILCS 5/10-22.13a.) The court also noted that it found "no statutory provisions that limit a home - rule unit's exercise of its zoning authority regarding school dis- tricts," while the Zoning Change Provision actually subjects the lo- cal school board to those duties imposed upon it by other statutory or constitutional provisions. The court concluded that the Board's view would make the Zoning Change Provision entirely surplusage, while, by contrast, interpreting the provision as subjecting the local school board and district to the municipality's zoning regulation would give effect to the provision. See also: La Salle Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Cook County, 12 Ill. 2d 40, 145 N.E.2d 65 (1957). See also: City of Chicago v. StubHub, Inc., 2011 IL 111127, 366 Ill. Dec. 43, 979 N.E.2d 844 (Ill. 2012). Case Note: In its decision, the court also applied a three-part analysis that had been used by Illinois courts in determining whether home -rule units may concurrently regulate in areas of statewide concern in keeping with the requirements set forth in 5C 6 of article X of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (i.e., constitutional provisions tasking state government with the pro- vision of public education). The three-part analysis included: (1) assess- ing the nature and extent of the problem; (2) determining whether the state or the municipality had a greater interest in solving the problem; and (3) determining whether the state or municipality had a traditional role in solving the problem. Applying that analysis here, the court found that: (1) the problem was to what extent the City could regulate land uses and zon- ing on the District's property; (2) the City had the greater interest in solv- ing the problem because zoning and land use is a local concern in which the state has no interest, while the state's interest is in providing educa- tion —which does not conflict with the City's zoning interest; and (3) the City had the traditional role in regulation land use and zoning of the District's property. Looking at the totality of that analysis, the court concluded that the regulation ofzoning and land use of the District 's prop- erty pertained to the government and affairs of the City and would not impede the state's ability to offer public education. 2014 Thomson Reuters 11