In the Zone: Court Finds No Procedural Due Process Violation in Zoning Challenge
The Illinois Appellate Court recently issued an opinion in a zoning challenge overturning a trial court's ruling that a city's zoning decision violated a neighboring property owner's procedural due process rights. Clark v. City of Galena.
In 2022, a developer filed an application requesting annexation and zoning approvals for a proposed mixed-use development on 80 acres of land in and adjacent to the city. The project included rental cottages, vineyard and winery, gardens, etc. The city's zoning board held a public hearing where the developer presented its application, and neighboring property owners and other interested parties spoke in opposition to the project. After closing the public hearing, the zoning board voted and sent its recommendation to the city council. The city council considered the zoning board's recommendation, and also allowed citizens to provide public comment on the project before voting in favor of both the proposed annexation and zoning approvals for the project. A few months later, the developer proposed amendments to the project, including annexation of additional property, and another zoning board hearing and city council meeting were held, and citizens were again allowed to provide testimony and public comment. The requested zoning changes and annexation of additional territory were approved by the city council.
A neighboring property owner who opposed the project filed a lawsuit against the city and developer to challenge the city's zoning decisions. She claimed that the zoning decisions violated various constitutional rights, including her procedural due process rights. The trial court ruled in favor of the city and developer on all counts except for the neighbor's claim that her procedural due process rights were violated.
The city and developer appealed, and the Appellate Court overturned the trial court's ruling in favor of the neighbor on her procedural due process claims. The Appellate Court noted that zoning decisions are presumed valid, and that the neighbor had the burden to overcome that presumption by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the Appellate Court reviewed the process that was held by the city, including the two public hearings held by the zoning board where citizens were allowed to, and did in fact, speak about the project, including the neighbor who filed the lawsuit, and the multiple city council meetings on the project where the city council also allowed public comment, in which the neighbor participated as did other interested citizens. The Court found that both the zoning board and city council discussed the project in detail during that process, and went through the criteria for granting relief, before voting on the project.
The Appellate Court rejected the trial court's determination that the city's procedure deprived the neighbor of her procedural due process rights because the city failed to proactively offer her an opportunity to cross-examine the developer's witnesses. The Appellate Court held that the neighbor had an unlimited opportunity to pose questions about the project, and that she had not made a request to directly cross-examine the developer's witnesses, nor did the city deny such a request, so there was no deprivation of her due process rights.
In sum, the Appellate Court found that the city's process was "thorough and allowed an interchange of evidence and opinions regarding the project," and that the city has an interest in an efficient process. The Court further found that the city was not required to proactively offer an opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses without a request by a citizen, as that would impose an additional burden for little benefit given the process provided in this case. As a result, the Court held that the neighbor failed to meet her burden to provide by clear and convincing evidence that her procedural due process rights were violated by the city's approval of the project. The Court also noted that the neighbor's failure to raise an objection to the city's process at the hearing resulted in a forfeiture of that issue in court.
