2011 IL App (2d) 100388
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Onwentsia Club is a private golf club in Lake Forest occupying about 180 acres across 10 parcels, with improvements including a swimming pool, clubhouse, horse riding area, stable, parking, driveway, and tennis courts totaling 8.72 acres.
- Prior to 2006, Lake County assessor granted open-space status to all golf-course land; in 2006 the county began valuing improved portions of golf courses as residential use, increasing assessments.
- 35 ILCS 200/10–155(d) defines open-space land and explicitly lists golf courses as an example of conserving landscaped areas; amendments and exceptions focus on residential use and commercial water-retention dams.
- The Lake County Board of Review denied open-space status for the improvements under the statute; PTAB affirmed, limiting open-space status to portions actually used to conserve landscaped areas.
- Petitioner argues improvements that facilitate the golf course can conserve landscaped areas and thus qualify as open space, not merely land that is itself landscaped; the PTAB erred in applying a bright-line test.
- The Illinois Appellate Court vacated the PTAB decision and remanded for factual determinations on whether specific improvements conserve landscaped areas by facilitating the golf course.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether improvements on the golf course can conserve landscaped areas and still qualify as open space. | Onwentsia contends improvements facilitate the golf course and thus conserve landscaped areas. | PTAB/Board argued only land actually used to conserve landscaped areas qualifies as open space, excluding improvements. | Yes; improvements may conserve landscaped areas and qualify for open-space status on remand. |
| Whether the statute’s exceptions exclude land with improvements from open-space status when not used for residential purposes. | Open-space status should not be denied based on improvements alone if not used residentially. | Improvements may preclude open space if they are not used to conserve landscaped areas. | Not per se; improvements that conserve landscaped areas may still qualify unless excluded by specific exceptions. |
| Whether the PTAB applied the correct standard in determining conservancy of landscaped areas. | PTAB erred by treating conservancy as requiring land to be physically a landscaped area. | PTAB correctly limited to portions actually used to conserve landscaped areas. | PTAB applied the wrong standard; vacated and remanded for proper evaluation of whether improvements conserve landscaped areas. |
Key Cases Cited
- First American Bank Corp. v. Henry, 239 Ill. 2d 511 (2011) (statutory interpretation and plain-language approach emphasizing legislature's intent)
- Roselle Police Pension Bd. v. Village of Roselle, 232 Ill. 2d 546 (2009) (read statute as a whole; avoid inserting nontextual limits)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (2001) (clearly erroneous standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact)
- City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 181 Ill. 2d 191 (1998) (deference in statutory interpretation when language is ambiguous)
- Consumers IL Water Co. v. Vermilion County Bd. of Review, 363 Ill. App. 3d 646 (2006) (open-space status can be conferred when improvements contribute to open-space nature)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc., 238 Ill. 2d 455 (2010) (limits on reading into statutes; avoid surplusage)
- Solon v. Midwest Medical Records Ass’n, 236 Ill. 2d 433 (2010) (statutory construction principles to avoid rendering parts surplusage)
- Lake County Bd. of Review v. Property Tax Appeal Bd., 192 Ill. App. 3d 605 (1989) (previous interpretations of open-space considerations)
- Golf Trust of America, L.P. v. Soat, 355 Ill. App. 3d 333 (2005) (use of land as a golf course is one open-space use)