Figiel v. Chicago Plan Commission
945 N.E.2d 71
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Owners of property near Grant Park challenged a zoning amendment approving a children's museum and park district facility.
- Applications for lakefront protection and for a planned development amendment were filed April 2, 2008.
- Plan commission heard public testimony and approved both amendments on May 15, 2008.
- City Council enacted the amendment on June 11, 2008 after a separate council review.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in October 2008 seeking de novo review and other relief under the Municipal Code.
- Circuit court dismissed the amended complaint in May 2009 for failure to give notice under 11-13-8.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is 11-13-25 an independent cause of action? | Figiel argues 11-13-25 creates an independent right to de novo review. | Defendants contend 11-13-25 only clarifies standard of review, not a new action. | No independent cause of action under 11-13-25. |
| Does 11-13-8 notice apply to this action? | Plaintiffs claim notice not required because action is not declaratory relief. | Defendants argue notice is required for any zoning challenge under 11-13-8. | Notice under 11-13-8 required; failure to provide notice fatal. |
| Does Dunlap control the outcome here? | Plaintiffs rely on 11-13-25 to avoid notice requirements. | Defendants rely on Dunlap to hold 11-13-25 does not create independent action. | Dunlap controls; 11-13-25 does not create independent action. |
| Does amended relief exceed declaratory relief and affect notice analysis? | Amended complaint sought broader relief beyond declaratory judgment. | Court found amended relief fell within declaratory framework. | Relief sought did not escape declaratory-relief framework; notice issue unchanged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunlap v. Village of Schaumburg, 394 Ill.App.3d 629 (2009) (11-13-25 clarifies standard of review, not independent action)
- Condominium Ass'n of Commonwealth Plaza v. City of Chicago, 399 Ill.App.3d 32 (2010) (confirms 11-13-25 does not create independent action)
- Klaeren v. Village of Lisle, 202 Ill.2d 164 (2002) (distinguishes legislative vs administrative zoning review)
- City of Chicago Heights v. Living Word Outreach Full Gospel Church & Ministries, Inc., 196 Ill.2d 1 (2001) (high court on due process in zoning decisions)
- Michigan Boulevard Building Co. v. Chicago Park Dist., 412 Ill. 350 (1952) (early framing of administrative vs legislative review in zoning)
- La Salle National Bank v. City Suites, Inc., 325 Ill.App.3d 780 (2001) (notice and declaratory action requirements in zoning challenges)