Lamar Whiteco Outdoor Corp. v. City of West Chicago

State: Illinois

Court: 2nd District Appellate

Docket No: 2-03-1392, 2-04-0575 Cons. Rel

Case Date: 02/08/2005

Nos. 2--03--1392 & 2--04--0575 cons.

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

LAMAR WHITECO OUTDOOR

)

Appeal from the Circuit Court

CORPORATION, JAGEN LINGAMNENI,

)

of Du Page County.

and PHILLIP VOVOLA,

)

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

)

No. 01--MR--907

)

THE CITY OF WEST CHICAGO and BILL

)

BEEBE, Code Enforcement Officer for the

)

City of West Chicago, in his Official Capacity,

)

Honorable

)

Patrick J. Leston,

Defendants-Appellees.

)

Judge, Presiding.

CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC.,	)	Appeal from the Circuit Court
f/k/a Eller Media Company,	)	of Du Page County.
successor-in-interest to Patrick Media as	)
successor-in-interest to Foster and Kleiser,	)	Nos. 99--MR--0973
RICHARD HOWLAND, RONALD KUHN,	)	99--OV--8698
and HARRY W. KUHN,	)	99--OV--8699
	)	99--OV--9644
Plaintiffs-Appellants,	)	99--OV--9645
	)	99--OV--9647
v.	)	99--OV--9648
	)
THE CITY OF WEST CHICAGO,	)	Honorable
	)	Edward R. Duncan, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellee.	)	Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE BYRNE delivered the opinion of the court:

These consolidated appeals each involve a challenge to a City of West Chicago (City) zoningordinance that was amended on October 19, 1992, to ban certain commercial and noncommercial off-premises advertising structures, including all billboards. The amended ordinance provided for aseven-year "amortization" period, or grace period, for removing existing nonconforming structuresor making them compliant with the ordinance. The ordinance did not provide for the compensationof an individual who lost the right to display a sign.

Plaintiffs allege that they lawfully erected billboards before the City amended the ordinanceto ban the structures. However, plaintiffs did not challenge the amended ordinance until theexpiration of the seven-year amortization period, when the City began enforcing the ban by issuingnontraffic citations (hereinafter, tickets). Generally, plaintiffs alleged violations under section 1983of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C.