delivered the opinion of the court:
Thе Highlands, L.L.C., filed a complaint in the circuit court of Knox County against the Knox County zoning board of appeals (board), Knox County State’s Attorney Paul Mangieri, and John Leonard, one of others hereafter collectively referred to as “Objectors.” The Highlands sought a determination that it could proceed to construct and operate a large-scale hog confinement facility. In two separate complaints against the Highlands, Knox County (county) and Leonard sought an injunction barring the construction of the facility.
The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Highlands. The appellate court, with one justice dissenting, upheld the judgment of the circuit court.
BACKGROUND
The record contains the following pertinent facts. Patricia Baird, a co-owner of the Highlands, and her husband, James, own land in a rural, unincorporated area of the county. The Highlands applied to the county zoning department for a construction permit to erect six buildings as part of a hog confinement facility. Several days later, the zoning department issued thе permit.
Approximately three months later, the Objectors appealed the issuance of the construction permit to the board. They contended, inter alia, that “the use of the property [i.e., a large-scale hog confinement facility] is not a customary agricultural use in this area.” They sought to “cancel construction permit and maintain F’ [farming] zoning.” The permit was suspended, thereby staying construсtion pending the appeal.
The board held a public hearing on the appeal, where it received testimony and written evidence both for and against the issuance of the construction permit. Four of the five board members were present. At the close of the evidence, two members voted to rescind the permit and one passed his vote. The chairman did not vote; he explained that since four votes were necessary to rescind the permit, the motion to rescind could not carry even if he voted in its favor. Accordingly, the chairman ruled that the motion to rescind failed.
Two days later, however, Mangieri advised the zoning department that the construction permit suspension should remain effective until the legal effect of the board’s action was clarified. Mangieri subsequently opined that the motion to rescind the construction permit had passed. The zoning department notified the Highlands that the board had granted the appeal and canceled the construction permit.
Despite having been told that the permit had been canceled, the Highlands began ground preparation on the proposed construction site. The zoning department then notified the Highlands that it was in violation of thе county zoning rules and directed it to cease all construction activities immediately.
The Highlands filed in the circuit court a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, in which it sought to enjoin the county from enforcing its zoning rules (counts I through III). The Highlands also sought administrative review of the board’s decision (count IV). The county then filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief against the Highlands; Leonard filed a similar complaint.
The Highlands then moved for summary judgment in all three pending cases. In the cases brought against it, the Highlands sought summary judgment on all counts. In the case it brought, the Highlands sought summary judgment only on the counts seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The circuit court granted the Highlands summary judgment in all three cases. The court included a finding that the board lacked jurisdiction to proceed because the Highlands v/as engaged in an agriсultural purpose, which is exempt from zoning regulations pursuant to the Counties Code. See 55 ILCS 5/5 — 12001 (West 1998). In light of this finding, the Highlands subsequently dismissed the remaining count of its complaint seeking administrative review.
The appellate court, with one justice dissenting, upheld the judgment of the circuit court.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing a trial court’s entry of summary judgment, the only issue on appeal is whether “the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2 — 1005(c) (West 1998). This case turns on the meaning of the term “agriculture” found in the Counties Code. 55 ILCS 5/5— 12001 (West 1998). The interpretation of a statute is a matter of lаw for the court and appropriate for summary judgment. Matsuda v. Cook County Employees’ & Officers’ Annuity & Benefit Fund,
I. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The parties disagree on whether the circuit court could hear the Highlands’ claim for injunctive relief. The county and Leonard characterize the Highlands’ claim as an improper collateral attack on the board’s decision, which should have been subject only to administrative review.
In support of their position, the county and Leonard correctly note that, pursuant to the Counties Code, the county has the power to regulate the location and use of buildings on unincorporated land. See 55 ILCS 5/5— 12001 (West 1998). Further, the Counties Code provides that all final decisions of zoning boards of appeals are subject to judicial review pursuant to the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3 — 101 et seq. (West 1998)). See 55 ILCS 5/5 — 12012 (West 1998). The county and Leonard then rely on the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies: a party aggrieved by an administrative decision ordinarily cannot seek judicial review without first pursuing all available administrative remedies. Castaneda v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n,
This aspect of the exhaustion doctrine is well established. However, it has several exceptions that are equally established. Two such exceptions are “where no issues of fact are presented or agency experience is not involved *** or where the agency’s jurisdiction is attacked because it is not authorized by statute.” Castaneda,
The county and Leonard contend that these exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine do not apply. They rely heavily on the reasoning of the appellate court dissent. The dissent opined that the board had the authority to determine whether the Highlands’ buildings were subject to permit requirements. Thе dissent noted that “jurisdiction” is a limited concept, which refers only to the authority to hear and decide the case and does not depend on the correctness of the decision made. Thus, a body has “jurisdiction” to make a wrong as well as a right decision. Accordingly, the dissent reasoned:
“While the Code prohibits the county from requiring permits on land used for agricultural purposes, it is the county that must determine for whаt purpose land is being used. Its jurisdiction does not depend on the correctness of its decision. It has the right to be wrong; it therefore has jurisdiction over the matter.”302 Ill. App. 3d at 349 (McLaren, J., dissenting).
We disagree. It must be remembered that the “jurisdiction” of an administrative agency has an aspect in addition to the “jurisdiction” of a court. This court has explained:
“An administrative agency is different from a court because an agency only has the authorization given to it by the legislature through the statutes. Consequently, to the extent an agency acts outside its statutory authority, it acts without jurisdiction. [Citation.] ‘The term “jurisdiction,” while not strictly applicable to an administrative body, may be employed to designate the authority of the administrative body to act ***.’ [Citation.] Thus, in administrative law, the term ‘jurisdiction’ has three aspects: (1) personal jurisdiction — the agency’s authority over the рarties and intervenors involved in the proceedings, (2) subject matter jurisdiction — the agency’s power ‘to hear and determine cases of the general class of cases to which the particular case belongs’ [citation], and (3) an agency’s scope of authority under the statutes.” Business & Professional People for the Public Interest v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n,136 Ill. 2d 192 , 243 (1989).
Thus, it is not entirely accurate to charaсterize the appellate court as having held that the board “has no jurisdiction over zoning.”
The dissent viewed the Highlands as not attacking the board’s jurisdiction, but rather as attacking the сorrectness of “the Board’s decision that the use of the land was not exempt from permit requirements. This is an attack on the correctness of the Board’s decision, which should only be attacked through administrative review.”
We disagree. The transcript of the board hearing shows that the Highlands attacked the jurisdiction of the board. Also, count I of the Highlands’ complaint expressly attacks the county’s zoning authority in this case. Quoting the Counties Code, count I expressly alleges that the statute does not authorize the board to regulate land used for agricultural purposes. Further, on this theory, inter alia, the Highlands based its motion for summary judgment.
“This court has consistently held that, inasmuch as an administrative agency is a creature of statute, any power or authority claimed by it must find its source within the provisions of the statute by which it is created.” Biо-Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Trainor,
In its claim for injunctive relief, the Highlands attacked the Board’s jurisdiction. This is a question of law ultimately for a court and not for the Board. Thus, the Highlands’ claim fell within established exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine. Accordingly, the appellate court correctly upheld the circuit court’s power to hear the Highlands’ claim for injunctive relief.
II. “Agriculture”
Turning to the mеrits, the county and Leonard assign error to the circuit court’s finding that the Highlands was engaged in an agricultural purpose, which is exempt from zoning regulations pursuant to the Counties Code. Section 5 — 12001 of the Code grants counties authority to regulate and restrict the use of land and the use and location of structures thereon. However, the Code expressly limits this authority in pertinent part:
“The powers by this Division given shall not be exercised *** so as to impose regulations *** or require permits with respect to land used for agricultural purposes, which includes the growing of farm crops, truck garden crops, animal and poultry husbandry, apiculture, aquaculture, dairying, floriculture, horticulture, nurseries, tree farms, sod farms, pasturage, viticulture, and wholesale greenhouses *** other than parcels of land consisting of less than 5 acres *** or with respеct to the erection, maintenance, repair, alteration, remodeling or extension of buildings or structures used or to be used for agricultural purposes upon such land except that such buildings or structures for agricultural purposes may be required to conform to building or set back bnes ***.” 55 ILCS 5/5— 12001 (West 1998).
The fundamental rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intention of the legislature. A court first looks to thе words of the statute. The language of the statute is the best indication of the legislative intent. When the statutory language is clear, it must be given effeet without resort to other tools of interpretation. In interpreting a statute, it is never proper for a court to depart from plain language by reading into a statute exceptions, limitations, or conditions which conflict with the clearly expressed legislative intent. Nottage v. Jeka,
In the present case, we agree with the appellate and circuit courts that a hog confinement facility falls within the “agricultural purposes” exemption from zoning regulation, except for conforming to building or setback lines. 55 ILCS 5/5 — 12001 (West 1998). “Agriculture” literally refers to “the science or art of cultivating the soil, harvesting crops, and raising livestock.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 44 (1993); accord Black’s Law Dictionary 69 (7th ed. 1999); 3 Am. Jur. 2d Agriculture § 1, at 934-35 (1986). “Husbandry” is literally a synonym for “agriculture.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 44, 1104 (1993) (definitions of “agriculture” and “husbandry,” respectively); accord 3 C.J.S. Agriculture § 2, at 524-25 (1973). “Animal husbandry” is literally “a branch of agriculture concerned with the production and care of domestic animals.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 85 (1993); accord 3 C.J.S. Agriculture § 2, at 525 (1973).
The literal meanings of these terms are broad and inclusive. We are not at liberty to say that they mean something else. Also, as the above definitions show, the meanings of these terms are current. They are not based on some archaic court decision, or on any particular case, old or recent. “In modern usage, agriculture is a wide and comprehensive term, and statutes using it without qualification must be given an equally comprehensive meaning.” 3 C.J.S. Agriculture § 2, at 524 (1973). Illinois courts have recognized this wide-ranging definition of the term “agriculture.” E.g., People ex rel. Pletcher v. City of Joliet,
Based on the broad nature of the foregoing definitions, it is clear that hog facilities fall within the meaning of agriculture or animal husbandry. Courts in other jurisdictions have so held and further held that local governments should treat them accordingly for purposes of zoning. See Carp v. Board of County Commissioners,
In plain and unambiguous terms, the legislature has prohibited zoning regulation of agricultural uses, such as animal husbandry, other than to cоnform to building or setback lines.
“Where the words employed in a legislative enactment are free from ambiguity or doubt, they must be given effect by the courts even though the consequences may be harsh, unjust, absurd or unwise. [Citations.] Such consequences can be avoided only by a change of the law, not by judicial construction ***.” People ex rel. Pauling v. Misevic,32 Ill. 2d 11 , 15 (1964).
Accord Powers v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund,
The appellate court reached this conclusion, as we have, based on the language of the Counties Code.
Citing a wide variety of sources, including journal and newspaper articles, and government and industry reports, the county and Leonard contend that a large-scale hog сonfinement facility is more closely related to industry than to agriculture. Leonard argues that “the livestock production industry and its potential for affecting the public health, safety, comfort and general welfare of its environs has changed completely since [the enactment of the county zoning statute].” According to the county, “as a matter of public policy, the potential environmental stress created by such an operation warrants a 21st century clarification of what agriculture is in this State.” Attacking the appellate and circuit courts in upholding the broad definition of agriculture, the county contends: “Such a myopic view wrongfully ends any debate upon the true nature of the given enterprise.”
We disagree. The holding of the appellate court shifts this debate from the judiciary to where it properly lies— with the legislature. It is for the legislative branch of the government — not the judicial branch — to determine when and where conditions exist requiring an exercise of the police power to meet existing evils. 11 Ill. L. & Prac. Constitutional Law § 149, at 498 (1981). Clearly, “the legislature has broad discretion to determine not only what the public interest and welfare require, but to determine the measures needed to secure such interest.” Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc. v. Thompson,
“No mere omission or failure on the part of the legislature to amend [in this case, the Counties Code] to meet changing conditions will justify any judicial addition to the language of the [Code]. Changes can be made by the legislature when it deems such changes necessary or proper in view of changed conditions.” Arnold v. City of Chicago,387 Ill. 532 , 541 (1944).
At what level of activity does a hog production facility cease to be “agricultural” and become “industrial”? This is an exercise in line-drawing classically meant for the legislature.
We note that the legislature knows how to limit the agricultural exemption from zoning regulation by specifying what “agricultural purposes” do not include. See County of Kendall v. Aurora National Bank Trust No. 1107,
CONCLUSION
We uphold the determination of the appellate and circuit courts that the county may assert zoning authority over the Highlands only so far as to require it “to conform to building or set back lines.” 55 ILCS 5/5— 12001 (West 1998). This holding obviates discussion of the legal effect of the board’s vote to rescind the construction permit, as to which the parties disagree.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the appellate court is affirmed.
Affirmed.