Whipple v. Village of North Utica
2017 IL App (3d) 150547
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Aramoni LLC sought annexation and rezoning of ~497 acres in La Salle County for a silica sand mine; North Utica approved annexation, rezoning (A-1 Agricultural), and a special-use permit despite local opposition.
- The annexation agreement and six ordinances permitted 24/7 mining, blasting on specified days, heavy truck traffic (with some route restrictions), and included a clause that lawful mine operations would "not constitute a nuisance" under village ordinance.
- Plaintiffs (13 nearby landowners/residents) alleged health, water, flooding, tile damage, noise, dust, light, traffic, and property-value harms and sued the Village and Aramoni for declaratory/injunctive relief.
- After an initial dismissal of administrative-review claims, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with three counts: (I) substantive due process (arbitrary rezoning/special-use), (II) equal protection, and (III) prospective private nuisance.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615; the trial court dismissed all counts with prejudice. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of count II but reversed dismissal of counts I and III and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether annexation/rezoning and granting the special-use permit/ordinances violated substantive due process as arbitrary and capricious | The ordinances and permit are arbitrary, inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, unnecessary given nearby mines, and will cause specific harms (dust, noise, water, traffic, lights, reduced values) to nearby property owners | The zoning and special-use decisions were legislative acts within the village’s authority and rationally related to public welfare; plaintiffs fail to plead facts meeting La Salle/Sinclair/Living Word tests | Reversed dismissal of Count I: plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts under La Salle/Sinclair and Living Word to survive a 2-615 motion; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether the annexation/ordinances violated equal protection by exempting plaintiffs from nuisance protections | Annexation was used to evade a county moratorium, effectively denying plaintiffs protections others enjoyed and singling them out for disparate (harmful) treatment | Ordinance applies generally; it does not single out plaintiffs or remove state/common-law remedies; plaintiffs pleaded conclusions, not facts showing intentional disparate treatment | Affirmed dismissal of Count II: complaint failed to plead facts showing intentional/specific disparate treatment or lack of rational basis |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a claim for prospective private nuisance to obtain injunctive relief | The planned mine will highly-probably cause noise, dust (silica), lights, heavy traffic, effluent discharge, and other harms that substantially interfere with use/enjoyment of property | Alleged harms are speculative; some asserted harms (tiles, flooding, wells) lack factual support and are conjectural | Reversed dismissal of Count III in part: allegations of continuous lights/noise, heavy truck traffic, effluent discharge, and particulate silica are factual and, taken with ordinances, suffice to state a prospective nuisance claim at pleading stage |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the ordinances/permit | Plaintiffs own/occupy property adjacent to or within 1/2 mile of the proposed mine and allege specific threatened harms; injunctive relief could redress injuries | Defendants argued lack of standing to bring zoning challenge | Trial court and appellate court held plaintiffs have standing: possessory interest in nearby land suffices and defendants failed to meet burden to disprove standing |
Key Cases Cited
- La Salle Nat’l Bank of Chi. v. County of Cook, 12 Ill. 2d 40 (Ill. 1957) (six‑factor test for arbitrariness in 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, 196 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2001) (special‑use permits are legislative and must be denied if a particular location causes unique adverse effects).
- Village of Wilsonville v. SCA Servs., Inc., 86 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1981) (equitable relief for threatened hazardous undertakings when harm is highly probable).
- Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296 (Ill. 2008) (motion to dismiss standard and review of zoning enactments under rational‑basis analysis).