Christian Assembly Rios De Agua Viva v. City of Burbank
948 N.E.2d 251
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Church entered a real estate contract to buy property in Burbank, Illinois, zoned C commercial, where churches are not permitted (only as a special use).
- Contract includes a zoning contingency: 120 days to determine zoning and obtain a change for church use, with extensions upon additional earnest money; termination rights with earnest money refunds.
- Church obtained a $600,000 mortgage commitment, contingent on obtaining proper zoning.
- Church applied for a special use permit in October 2010; city public hearing occurred in December 2010; city proposed amendment to zoning ordinance restricting noncommercial uses in C district, while allowing noncommercial assembly in residential districts.
- Planning commission recommended against the special use permit due to lack of anticipated tax revenue; court denied emergency injunction seeking to compel zoning approval.
- Ordinance No. 35-12-10 enacted December 15, 2010, prohibiting noncommercial uses in C district; church suit for declaratory relief and injunction followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether church has a vested right to use the property as a church. | Rios de Agua Viva contends preamendment zoning allowed church use as vested right. | City argues there was no vested right since church use was not permitted under preamendment zoning. | No vested right; probability of approval not established. |
| Whether there was a probability of approval for church use under preamendment ordinance. | Because preamendment ordinance allowed churches as special use, probability of approval existed. | Probability did not exist because churches were not a permitted use under the relevant zoning at contract time. | Probability of approval not shown; no vested right. |
| Whether the amended zoning ordinance violates the Illinois Civil Rights Act or fundamental rights. | Amended ordinance discriminates against Hispanics and burdens religious exercise. | Amendment targets nonrevenue-producing uses broadly and is a legitimate zoning goal. | Amendment does not discriminate on basis of race or religion; it applies to all nonrevenue-producing assemblies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of Waukegan v. Village of Vernon Hills, 254 Ill.App.3d 24 (1994) (vested rights require probability of approval and substantial reliance.)
- 1350 Lake Shore Associates v. Healey, 223 Ill.2d 607 (2006) (mere possibility of amendment does not bar good-faith reliance on prior ordinance.)
- All Nations Worship Center v. City of Elgin, 369 Ill.App.3d 664 (2006) (reliance on illegality of prior ordinance cannot create vested rights to violate it.)
- Petra Presbyterian Church v. Village of Northbrook, 489 F.3d 846 (7th Cir.2007) (federal vested-rights analysis; cannot immunize from valid future zoning.)
- River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2010) (tax revenue concerns are legitimate zoning goals; discrimination not shown.)