Cedarhurst of Bethalto Real Estate, LLC v. Vill. of Bethalto

2018 IL App (5th) 170309

116 N.E.3d 377

426 Ill.Dec. 528

CEDARHURST OF BETHALTO REAL ESTATE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.The VILLAGE OF BETHALTO, Illinois; Alan Winslow, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the Village of Bethalto; Gerald Bourland, in His Official Capacity as Trustee of the Village of Bethalto; Perry Withers, in His Official Capacity as Trustee of the Village of Bethalto; Jeff Mull, in His Official Capacity as Trustee of the Village of Bethalto; Gary Bost, in His Official Capacity as Trustee of the Village of Bethalto; Brady Dugger, in His Official Capacity as Trustee of the Village of Bethalto; and Dan McRae, in His Official Capacity as Trustee of the Village of Bethalto, Defendants-Appellees.

NO. 5-17-0309

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

Opinion Filed: October 12, 2018

Gregory C. Mollett, Clark W. Hedger, Tali L. Katz, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C., 10 South Broadway, Suite 2000, St. Louis, MO 63102, for Appellant.

Robert L. Jackstadt, Charles P. Watkins, Tueth, Keeney, Cooper, Mohan & Jackstadt, P.C., 101 West Vandalia, Suite 210, Edwardsville, IL 62025, for Appellees.

JUSTICE CHAPMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Cedarhurst of Bethalto Real Estate, LLC (Cedarhurst), is a corporate entity located in the Village of Bethalto (Village) that operates a local residential nursing home. Unique Homes Properties, Inc. (Unique Homes), had plans to develop a new senior citizen residential, nursing, and memory care facility in Bethalto. Cedarhurst filed suit against the Village and its mayor and trustees (collectively referred to as defendants in this opinion), alleging that the defendants must regulate development near the St. Louis Regional Airport and that the permission defendants granted Unique Homes violates the Village's 2000 comprehensive plan because the tract of land is too geographically close to the airport. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Cedarhurst's complaint, alleging that Cedarhurst had no standing. On July 20, 2017, the trial court granted defendants' motion. In its detailed order, the court found that because Cedarhurst was complaining about a third party's planned land usage, it was required to plead direct personal special injury or damages. Cedarhurst was not able to plead personal damages connected to Unique Homes' planned development, and so the court held that it lacked standing. For the reasons that follow in this opinion, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing Cedarhurst's complaint.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 Cedarhurst alleges that Unique Homes is constructing a senior citizen residential and memory care facility in the Village and claims that the proposed site is in the flight path of the main runway of the St. Louis Regional Airport. The tract allegedly abuts the airport's runway protection zone. Cedarhurst cites to the Village's 2000 comprehensive plan, which Cedarhurst alleges required the Village to create an airport overlay district. The 2000 comprehensive plan serves as "a general plan to guide the future development and redevelopment of [Bethalto]" and is to be utilized by the Village trustees in reviewing all applications for development. Specifically, the 2000 comprehensive plan contains the following statement:

"The creation of an airport overlay zoning district is perhaps the best technique to encourage compatible land uses around the airport. * * * The FAA guidelines for land use compatibility are used to determine the permitted land uses and related development standards within the overlay district. Land uses that are sensitive to certain noise levels are not permitted within the overlay district, or portions thereof, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare."

The defendants adopted a comprehensive plan in 2014 that no longer contains the quoted provision.

¶ 4 Cedarhurst asked for a meeting with the Village mayor in February 2017 to express its concerns that the planned location for the Unique Homes retirement facility "would be putting seniors' health and safety at risk." In addition, Cedarhurst complained that Unique Homes "was unfairly manipulating the development approval process—through political clout or otherwise."

¶ 5 Ultimately, on March 31, 2017, Cedarhurst filed its complaint seeking declaratory, mandamus , and injunctive relief. In its declaratory judgment and mandamus counts, Cedarhurst asked the trial court, in part, to order the Village to comply with its 2000 comprehensive plan, mandate that the Village create an airport overlay district, and prohibit the Village from taking any action on Unique Homes' development applications. Cedarhurst also sought injunctive relief, asking the court to enjoin the defendants from allowing Unique Homes to proceed with its proposed senior living facility development.

¶ 6 The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Cedarhurst lacked standing to bring any claim because it did not plead special injury or individualized harm and, alternatively, that there was no actual controversy between the parties in this case. More specifically, the defendants asserted that the Village had no obligation to create the airport overlay district. The defendants explained that the 2000 comprehensive plan was replaced by the 2014 plan, and thus Cedarhurst could not allege an actual controversy regarding the 2000 plan. Furthermore, the defendants stated that the plan was advisory in nature and did not constitute law, and thus the Village was under no obligation to implement any part of the plan. Finally, the defendants claimed that Cedarhurst had no interest in the alleged controversy because it had no personal claim, status, or right capable of being impacted by the development planned by Unique Homes.

¶ 7 The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on July 20, 2017. The court concluded that Cedarhurst lacked standing to complain about the use of someone else's property, as it did not and could not allege a special personal damage different from any potential damage that the general public might suffer. Garner v. County of Du Page , 8 Ill. 2d 155, 158-60, 133 N.E.2d 303, 304-05 (1956) ; Bullock v. City of Evanston , 5 Ill. 2d 22, 33-34, 123 N.E.2d 840, 846 (1954). In addition, the trial court found that even if Cedarhurst had standing to maintain this suit, the Village did not violate any ordinance that could result in a legitimate claim.

¶ 8 Cedarhurst timely filed its appeal from the trial court's order.

¶ 9 LAW AND ANALYSIS

¶ 10 Our review of this issue is de novo . The underlying motion denied by the trial court was based upon sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure, both of which mandate de novo review. 735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2016); Paul v. County of Ogle , 2018 IL App (2d) 170696, ¶ 34, 422 Ill.Dec. 453, 103 N.E.3d 585 (review of ruling on section 2-615 motion to dismiss is de novo ); Glasgow v. Associated Banc-Corp. , 2012 IL App (2d) 111303, ¶ 11, 366 Ill.Dec. 692, 980 N.E.2d 785 (review of ruling on section 2-619 motion to dismiss is de novo ). When ruling upon either a section 2-615 or section 2-619 motion to dismiss, the court should accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and make reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the nonmoving party. Edelman, Combs & Latturner v. Hinshaw & Culbertson , 338 Ill. App. 3d 156, 164, 273 Ill.Dec. 149, 788 N.E.2d 740, 747 (2003).

¶ 11 Combined motions may be filed together but must be in separate parts pursuant to the two different sections of the Code of Civil Procedure utilized. 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2016). Each section must contain the points or grounds upon which the argument to dismiss is based. Id. In a properly filed combined motion to dismiss, the court must first look to dismissal under section 2-619, which requires courts to view the complaint for its legal sufficiency in light of the raised defects, defenses, or other affirmative matters that may defeat or bar the claim. Edelman, Combs & Latturner , 338 Ill. App. 3d at 164, 273 Ill.Dec. 149, 788 N.E.2d 740.

¶ 12 Here, Cedarhurst and Unique Homes are in a similar line of business—senior residential homes. Cedarhurst claims that it filed this suit, in part, to protect the future residents of the Unique Homes development, as the planned development is located geographically close to a local regional airport. It alleges that the defendants have a nondiscretionary common law duty to protect community health and safety; that they must enforce all laws and ordinances prescribed by law; and that the 2000 comprehensive plan obligates the Village to regulate land use to ensure the health, public safety, and welfare of the community.

¶ 13 We first review the issue of Cedarhurst's standing to file its action against the defendants because the issue would be dispositive.

¶ 14 Cedarhurst was not obligated to establish its standing in its complaint. However, once the defendants raised standing as an affirmative defense in their motion to dismiss, the burden shifted to Cedarhurst to establish that it has standing. Village of Willow Springs v. Village of Lemont , 2016 IL App (1st) 152670, ¶ 29, 410 Ill.Dec. 393, 70 N.E.3d 210.

¶ 15 Standing in General

¶ 16 The doctrine of standing serves to bar persons who have no interest in a controversy from filing suit. Glisson v. City of Marion , 188 Ill. 2d 211, 221, 242 Ill.Dec. 79, 720 N.E.2d 1034, 1039 (1999). Lack of standing is an "affirmative matter" that can be raised under section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2016); Greer v. Illinois Housing Development Authority , 122 Ill. 2d 462, 494, 120 Ill.Dec. 531, 524 N.E.2d 561, 575 (1988).

¶ 17 This case is distinctive in that Cedarhurst is complaining about actions and/or inactions by the defendants about property being developed by a third party, Unique Homes. The supreme court addressed the issue of standing in Garner v. County of Du Page , 8 Ill. 2d 155, 133 N.E.2d 303, a case structurally similar to...