Zoning Law

I must state up front that the law, zoning, and city planning are NOT my areas of expertise. I am simply a lay person activist who has asked a lot of questions, called a lot of people, looked up a lot of things in the WIU library, and drawn my own conclusions. I believe I am correct, but please feel free to check my information for yourself, as I am only human. -Heather McMeekan

The United States Supreme Court first established, and continues to hold that zoning is a legitimate use of police power to help 'ensure domestic tranquility' and to 'promote the general welfare'...as written in the Preamble to the Constitution. In the State of Illinois, in the court decision DeBartolo v Village of Oak Park, "Zoning must begin somewhere and end somewhere and that there must be a line fixing the boundaries of several districts and it [was] the duty of the city to establish these boundaries by ordinance". Macomb is, therefore, obligated by law to establish these boundaries somewhere. ...to the top

A zoning ordinance 'will be upheld if it is reasonable, not arbitrary, and bears a rational relationship to a [permissible] state objective" and that "this Court has consistently recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to States the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways" (that means such groups as college students, but does NOT allow for different zoning based upon race, ethnicity, gender, etc.) (Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 76) Available: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/404/71.html

In the Illinois District Court case Exchange national Bank of Chicago v. County of Cook, (185 N.E. 2d 250), the court found that "Regulation of Density, as related to land use, is a legitimate object of police power".

In the landmark United States Supreme Court decision Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas (1974), the court held that a group of 6 college students could be prohibited from living together as legitimate 'single family', because the limitations of the zoning were 'considered to be a legitimate and reasonable manner in which to maintain the character of a single-family residential neighborhood'. Village of Belle Terre V. Boraas (1974). Available: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/416/1.html

In fact, the Illinois Supreme Court has declared that ordinances in Illinois which require some type of blood or marriage relationship to be unconstitutional, because it is too restrictive, and does not address the issue of density properly. Simply put, a numerical definition of unrelated persons with 'family', is unconstitutional in this state...so the CURRENT single family zoning definition in Macomb is unconstitutional...awaiting only a court challenge to be overturned. (Des Plaines v. Trottner 216 N.E. 2d 116). Even changing the ordinance to only three unrelated persons would be unconstitutional.

The definition we are going for addresses zoning density issues while allowing a broad definition of family without the accompanying unconstitutional requirements for relationships. Please refer to the links on our website about this issue to read the Ithaca definition for yourself.

The United States Supreme Court On Zoning "We refused to limit the concept of public welfare that may be enhanced by zoning regulations. We said: "Miserable and disreputable housing conditions may do more than spread disease and crime and immorality. [416 U.S. 1, 6] They may also suffocate the spirit by reducing the people who live there to the status of cattle. They may indeed make living an almost insufferable burden. They may also be an ugly sore, a blight on the community which robs it of charm, which makes it a place from which men turn. The misery of housing may despoil a community as an open sewer may ruin a river. "We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. . . . The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled." Id., at 32-33. Village of Belle Terre V. Boraas (1974). Available: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/416/1.html

Amortization
The law clearly protects property owners against unreasonable search and seizure. Basically, if a city passes an ordinance which makes a previous legal use of a property illegal, the city is obligated to allow that property to continue to be used as a 'special use'...or exemption. In this city, we call it a 'special use permit'.

Now, if that property is sold, the special use gets inherited by the next owner. "A purchaser of property is entitled to the same rights as his grantors" (People v. Smith, 3 49 N.E. 2d 91). In other words, no matter how the area zoning definition changes, the existing businesses get to stay exactly as they are. Of course, this does assume that the existing use was legal at the time the ordinance was changed.

Amortization in Macomb can only happen to non-conforming spaces which present a threat to public health or public safety (I forgot to write down the case on this, but I will find it the next time I am in the law library), OR special use permits which go unused for the period of 1 year.

The spaces we want amortized are those which threaten the public health or public safety. We have no power to change those which do not. ...to the top