2018 IL App (5th) 170309
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Cedarhurst of Bethalto, LLC operates a nursing home in the Village of Bethalto and challenged a proposed senior/memory-care development by Unique Homes, alleging the site lies within the airport flight path and adjacent to the runway protection zone.
- Cedarhurst relied on language in Bethalto’s 2000 comprehensive plan calling for an airport overlay district; the Village adopted a new comprehensive plan in 2014 that omitted that language.
- Cedarhurst sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus to force the Village to comply with the 2000 plan, create an airport overlay district, and stop Unique Homes’ development.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 2-619, arguing Cedarhurst lacked standing and that the 2000 plan was advisory and superseded by the 2014 plan.
- The trial court granted the motion, finding Cedarhurst failed to plead a personal, distinct injury from the third-party development and thus lacked standing; Cedarhurst appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek declaratory relief | Cedarhurst argued Village violated its 2000 plan and must be ordered to create airport overlay; public safety concerns justify suit | Village argued Cedarhurst lacks personal, distinct injury and 2000 plan is advisory/superseded by 2014 plan | No standing; no personal claim or controvery tied to Cedarhurst; dismissal affirmed |
| Standing to seek injunctive relief | Sought injunction to block Unique Homes’ development to protect seniors’ safety | Village: plaintiff has no substantive personal right or statutory/common-law interest to protect | No standing; injury is abstract and not a legally cognizable interest; dismissal affirmed |
| Standing to seek mandamus | Asked court to compel ministerial action to enforce the 2000 plan | Village: no clear duty to act because 2000 plan is advisory and no ordinance requires overlay; 2014 plan supersedes | No standing; cannot show clear affirmative right or duty by officials; mandamus unavailable |
| Justiciability / actual controversy | Cedarhurst relied on cases allowing public-interest mandamus | Village argued no actual controversy and plan not binding law | Court: no actual controversy between parties regarding a binding obligation; relief would not redress a distinct injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Garner v. County of Du Page, 8 Ill. 2d 155 (1956) (complainant challenging use of another’s property must show special damage different from general public)
- Bullock v. City of Evanston, 5 Ill. 2d 22 (1954) (residents lacked special damage from a zoning variance; no standing)
- Greer v. Illinois Housing Development Authority, 122 Ill. 2d 462 (1988) (standing requires some injury in fact to a legally cognizable interest; injury must be distinct and palpable)
- Glazewski v. Coronet Insurance Co., 108 Ill. 2d 243 (1985) (no standing where plaintiffs lacked dealings or reliance creating actual injury)
- Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211 (1999) (taxpayer lacked standing based on abstract environmental interest; self-professed concern insufficient)
- Swain v. County of Winnebago, 111 Ill. App. 2d 458 (1969) (business and downtown council lacked standing to challenge rezoning absent special damage)