Youngberg v. The Village of Round Lake Beach
2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 464
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On June 9, 2016 the Village of Round Lake Beach cited Vall Youngberg for storing two motor vehicles on his private driveway with expired registration stickers, violating Round Lake Beach Municipal Code § 5-10-7(A).
- Youngberg argued the Illinois Vehicle Code prohibits operation of unregistered vehicles on public roads but does not prohibit storage of unregistered vehicles on private property.
- Youngberg also noted existing Village nuisance provisions target "inoperable" vehicles (incapable of being driven under their own power), and he was not cited under those provisions.
- An administrative hearing officer upheld the citations; Youngberg sought administrative review in Lake County circuit court, which affirmed; Youngberg appealed.
- The Village is a home rule municipality; it defended the ordinance as a valid exercise of home rule police power to protect local health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Village had authority to ban storage of unregistered vehicles on private property | Youngberg: State law governs vehicle registration and storage on private property; Village lacks authority and ordinance targets non-nuisance conduct | Village: As a home rule unit it may regulate local health, safety, welfare and abate nuisances, including problems from unregistered vehicles | Ordinance valid under home rule power; question of statutory authority is academic because home rule covers it |
| Whether ordinance pertains to local government and affairs (section 6(a)) | Youngberg: Registration and fee collection are primarily State interests, so subject is statewide | Village: Ordinance addresses local problems (vermin, stagnant water, eyesores) and thus pertains to local affairs | Court: Pertains to local government and affairs—local welfare and aesthetics justify regulation |
| Whether State law preempts or makes municipal exercise exclusive | Youngberg: Implicit preemption because Vehicle Code regulates registration/use | Village: No express preemption; concurrent exercise allowed under Ill. Const. art. VII, § 6(i) | No legislative preemption found; concurrent power exists |
| Whether ordinance is a reasonable exercise of police power (Due Process/over-/underinclusiveness) | Youngberg: Ordinance is overinclusive (not all unregistered vehicles are nuisances) and underinclusive (some registered vehicles may be nuisances) | Village: Prohibiting unenclosed storage of vehicles that cannot be legally driven reasonably addresses local harms | Court: Ordinance reasonably relates to legitimate local interest and is a valid exercise of police power; as-applied challenge failed for lack of evidence of permitted comparable uses nearby |
Key Cases Cited
- Schillerstrom Homes, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 198 Ill. 2d 281 (Ill. 2001) (three-part test for home rule ordinances and relation to state statute)
- City of Chicago v. StubHub, Inc., 2011 IL 111127 (Ill. 2011) (discussion of home rule and vital state interests)
- Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass'n, 2013 IL 110505 (Ill. 2013) (concurrent exercise under art. VII, § 6(i))
- City of Evanston v. Create, Inc., 85 Ill. 2d 101 (Ill. 1981) (broad statement of home rule police power)
- Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 103 Ill. 2d 483 (Ill. 1984) (test for whether problem is local or statewide)
- City of Chicago v. Sachs, 1 Ill. 2d 342 (Ill. 1953) (as-applied zoning challenge principles)