Youngberg v. Village of Round Lake Beach
2017 IL App (2d) 160539
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On June 9, 2016 the Village of Round Lake Beach cited Vall Youngberg for violating § 5-10-7(A) of the Village Code, which prohibits storing a vehicle on open private land unless it is duly registered for operation on public highways.
- Two vehicles on Youngberg’s driveway had expired registration stickers when cited; Youngberg did not dispute that fact.
- Youngberg challenged the ordinance’s validity at an administrative hearing; the hearing officer upheld the citations. He sought administrative review in Lake County circuit court, which affirmed; Youngberg appealed.
- Youngberg argued the Village lacked authority because the Illinois Vehicle Code regulates operation on public highways but does not forbid storing unregistered vehicles on private property, and the Village’s nuisance provision targets inoperable (not merely unregistered) vehicles.
- The Village is a home rule municipality and defended § 5-10-7(A) as a valid exercise of home-rule police power to protect public health, safety, and welfare (including aesthetic and nuisance concerns).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Village has authority to prohibit storing unregistered vehicles on private property | Youngberg: State regulates vehicle registration; Village cannot criminalize mere private storage of unregistered vehicles and its nuisance code covers only inoperable vehicles | Village: As a home rule unit it may regulate for health, safety, morals and welfare; ordinance addresses local public-welfare problems (vermin, standing water, eyesores) | Court: Ordinance pertains to local government/affairs and is within home rule power; Village has authority |
| Whether § 5-10-7(A) is preempted by state law or conflicts with the Vehicle Code | Youngberg: State has primary interest in vehicle registration/fees; ordinance intrudes on state domain | Village: Any state interest (registration fees) is incidental; ordinance targets local harms from unregistered vehicles | Court: No express preemption; concurrent exercise allowed under home rule §6(i); local legislation valid |
| Whether the ordinance exceeds the Village’s police power as unreasonable or arbitrary | Youngberg: Ordinance is overinclusive (not all unregistered vehicles are nuisances) and capricious as-applied | Village: Ordinance reasonably relates to legitimate local interests and uses a permissible means to address them | Court: Ordinance reasonably relates to public-welfare aims and survives due-process/Police-power review |
| Whether an as-applied challenge (Sachs-type) succeeds here | Youngberg: Invokes Sachs to argue ordinance is capricious as-applied where permitted uses exist | Youngberg: N/A (no evidence of neighboring uses) | Court: Sachs requires evidence of permitted uses in vicinity; no such evidence here, so as-applied challenge fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Schillerstrom Homes, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 198 Ill. 2d 281 (municipal home-rule analysis and three-part test)
- City of Chicago v. StubHub, Inc., 2011 IL 111127 (home-rule concurrent authority where legislature has not expressly preempted)
- Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 103 Ill. 2d 483 (test for whether matter pertains to local government and affairs)
- City of Chicago v. Sachs, 1 Ill. 2d 342 (as-applied challenge where ordinance permits some uses but excludes others)
- Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 (due-process standard for police power: means reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive)