LeCOMPTE v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals
958 N.E.2d 1065
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- LeCompte family and North Star Trust own Oakwood Farm (~130 acres) at 350 Bateman Rd, Barrington Hills, used as a horse farm with ~45 horses (35 owned by third parties; 10 by LeComptes) and includes haying, breeding, training, veterinary services; stable and riding arena exist on the property.
- Oakwood Farm sits in an R-1 residential district; Zoning Code §5-5-2(A) permits agriculture there, and §5-2-1 defines agriculture to include animal husbandry (including breeding and raising horses).
- Village issued a Jan. 10, 2008 cease-and-desist letter for commercial horse boarding on Oakwood Farm as a nonpermitted use.
- Zoning Board held hearings in Aug. 2008, found that commercial boarding of horses is not agriculture in an R-1 district and not permitted; §5-3-4(A) did not apply; denied relief.
- Circuit court affirmed the Zoning Board; LeComptes appealed; Board sought to strike reply brief; issue primarily focused on whether commercial boarding is agricultural use under the Zoning Code.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is commercial horse boarding agriculture in R-1 under 5-5-2(A) and 5-2-1? | LeCompte argues boarding is agriculture. | Village argues boarding is not agriculture. | Not agriculture; boarding not a permitted use. |
| Do ‘breeding’ and ‘raising’ encompass boarding under 5-2-1? | LeCompte relies on breeding/raising to include boarding. | Village contends boarding is not within breeding/raising. | Boarding is not included in the terms; not within the definition. |
| Do using a stable for commercial boarding comply with the code's incidental-use rule? | Boarding could be a home occupation incidental to residential use. | Boarding is a primary use, not incidental accessory to residential occupancy. | Not incidental; violates the accessory-use concept. |
| Does the Zoning Code as a whole support the Zoning Board’s interpretation? | Code supports agricultural use of boarding. | Code contemplated limits to preserve residential tranquility; not permit boarding. | Whole-code context supports Board; decision not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cosmopolitan National Bank v. County of Cook, 103 Ill.2d 302 (Ill. 1984) (plain-language interpretation; best indication of legislative intent)
- Perry v. People, 224 Ill.2d 312 (Ill. 2007) (use of 'includes' vs 'including' in definitions; comprehensive vs illustrative lists)
- Paxson v. Board of Education of School District No. 87, 276 Ill.App.3d 912 (Ill. App. 1995) (illustrative lists; helpful for definitional scope)
- Kostecki v. Pavlis, 140 Ill.App.3d 176 (Ill. App. 1986) (interpretation of terms in zoning context)
- City of Joliet, 321 Ill. 385 (Ill. 1926) (agriculture undefined; resort to dictionary/broad interpretation)
- County of Knox ex rel. Masterson v. The Highlands, L.L.C., 302 Ill. App. 3d 342 (Ill. App. 1998) (comparison on extrinsic sources where terms undefined)