Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2002

Home

March 25, 2002 -- Page 3 defined day care homes as family homes that received four to 12 chi/dren for less than 24 hours. A license was required from the local state family serviCes agency. The Child Care Act did not exempt day. care homes ~om zoning requirements. The state issued a license to Hawthorne to operate a day care home in her residence in Octobert 1999. She then applied to the village, to remodel her residence to accommodate her bus/ness. The village administrator wrote' to Hawthorne, advising her proposed day care. operation did not fall within' the definition of home occupation under the zoning ordinance. 'The letter explained the changes she proposed to her house would change the resident/al character and the outside play area was contrary to the Ordinance. The letter also stated .. Hawthorne's proposal to have an employee work at Hawthorne's house did not' conform to the zoning ordinance. Hawtho .me {hen requested zoning variances to allow her day care home as a "home occupation" and to allow a non-family member to be employed there. After a public hearing at which residents expressed concerns about traffic, disrup- tion of tranquility, and employment of non-residents, the variances were denied. Hawthorne asked the court to require the village to allow her daY care cen- ter with a non-family employee. The lower court found in favor of Hawthorne in part, finding the ordinance was exclusionary and void. It also found the village, as a non-home-role entity, was partially Preempted by the Child Care. Act and regulations from regulating day care. The order permanently stopped the village from regulating day care homes under the zoning ordinance in a manner that conflicted with the Child Care Act. The lower court expressly found Hawthorn was entitled to _operate a day care home pursuant to her state license. The village appealed. DECISION: Judgment affirmed. Hawthorne could operate her day care hOme under her state license. A zoning law was impermissibly exclusi0narS' if the affected activity was effectively prohibited anywhere within the municipal limits. The village argued the ordinance did not provide a blanket prohibition against day care facilities, but only home day care in resident/al districts. How- ever, the le~slature recognized home day care fa6ilities as a distinct kind of facility, and therefore prohibiting such residential day care was Unlawfully exclusionary. 'Also, the vflla=e s ordinance was partially preempted by the Child Care Act. Day care homes could not be regulated in a manner that conflicted with the Child Care Act or regulations. Citation: Hawthorne v. Village of Olympia Fields, appellate Court of Illinois, ]st Dist., 5th Div., No. 1-0]-0447 (2002). see also: People ex. Re. Trust Co. of Chicago v. Village of Skokie, 97 N.E. 2d 3]0 (1951). see also: Oak Forest Mobile Home Park b2c. v. Ci~. of Oak Forest, 326 N.£.2d 473 (]975). 237