Whipple v. Village of North Utica
79 N.E.3d 667
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Aramoni LLC sought to operate a 497‑acre silica sand mine in Waltham Township; it obtained annexation, rezoning (A‑1 Agricultural), and a special‑use permit from the Village of North Utica permitting 24/7 mining and blasting under set conditions.
- Plaintiffs are 13 nearby landowners/occupants within roughly ½ mile who alleged harms to health, wells, drainage, farm tiles, noise (up to 133 dB), lighting, truck traffic, air silica dust, and property values.
- The annexation agreement and ordinances stated a lawful, normal operation of the mine would not constitute a village nuisance; the agreement also included mitigation promises and a well‑protection offer.
- Plaintiffs sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief: Count I — substantive due process (arbitrary rezoning / improper special use), Count II — equal protection, Count III — prospective private nuisance. Trial court dismissed all counts under 735 ILCS 5/2‑615; plaintiffs appealed.
- The appellate court held plaintiffs had standing and reversed dismissal of Counts I (substantive due process) and III (prospective nuisance), but affirmed dismissal of Count II (equal protection). The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether annexation/ordinances and issuance of special‑use permit violated substantive due process as arbitrary/capricious rezoning or improper special use | Annexation and permits will cause substantial, particularized harms (noise, dust, water, traffic, lights, value loss) and conflict with the comprehensive plan and local moratorium, satisfying La Salle/Sinclair and Living Word factors | Zoning/permit decisions are legislative, conform to A‑1 zoning (mining is a permitted special use), and any rational basis for action defeats substantive due process challenge | Reversed dismissal: complaint alleged sufficient facts under La Salle/Sinclair and Living Word to survive a 2‑615 motion; Count I proceeds |
| Whether plaintiffs stated an equal protection claim based on allegedly unequal removal of nuisance protections | Annexation effectively exempted nearby landowners from moratorium protections and abrogated nuisance protection for their area, singling them out and causing irreparable harm | Ordinance is facially neutral, applies equally to all village residents, and plaintiffs alleged only legal conclusions without facts showing intentional disparate treatment | Affirmed dismissal: plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing similarly situated persons were intentionally treated differently; Count II dismissed |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a prospective private nuisance claim to enjoin the mine before operation | Detailed factual allegations (continuous lights, extreme blasting noise, 146 truckloads/day, 1.25M gallons/day effluent, silica dust) make it highly probable the operation will substantially invade use/enjoyment of plaintiffs' property | Many asserted harms (tile damage, flooding, well contamination) are speculative and unsupported; plaintiffs must plead high probability of nuisance | Reversed dismissal: allegations of noise, lights, dust, heavy traffic, effluent discharge and 24/7 operations were factual and sufficient to state a prospective nuisance claim under 2‑615 |
| Standing to sue to challenge annexation, rezoning, and special‑use permit | Nearby possessory interests and threatened harms confer standing to seek injunctive relief | Defendants asserted plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge municipal legislative action | Trial court denial of defendants' standing challenge affirmed: plaintiffs alleged cognizable possessory interests and redressable harms |
Key Cases Cited
- La Salle Nat'l Bank of Chicago v. County of Cook, 12 Ill. 2d 40 (Ill. 1957) (six‑factor test for arbitrariness of zoning/rezoning)
- Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Village of Richton Park, 19 Ill. 2d 370 (Ill. 1960) (additional zoning factors: comprehensive plan harmony and community need)
- City of Chicago Heights v. Living Word Outreach Full Gospel Church & Ministries, Inc., 196 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2001) (special‑use permits reviewed for unique adverse effects at particular locations)
- Village of Wilsonville v. SCA Servs., Inc., 86 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1981) (prospective nuisance and injunctive relief when hazardous undertaking poses imminent threat)
- Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296 (Ill. 2008) (standard for pleading to survive a motion to dismiss)