Millineum Maintenance Management v. County of Lake

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 2nd District Appellate » 2008 » Millineum Maintenance Management v. County of Lake

State: Illinois

Court: 2nd District Appellate

Docket No: 2-07-0728 Rel

Case Date: 08/15/2008

Preview:No. 2--07--0728 Filed: 8-15-08 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ MILLINEUM MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT, INC., and CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Lake County. ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) v. ) No. 06--MR--752 ) THE COUNTY OF LAKE, LAKE COUNTY ) BOARD, LAKE COUNTY CHAIRMAN ) SUZI SCHMIDT, THE VILLAGE OF ) METTAWA, DEERPATH FARM, LLC, ) GORDON WHITE, JOHN CAHILL, JOHN ) FRANKS, LIZ OSTMAN, RURIKO ) PARSONS, DOT FOX, BEVERLY ) BLOSSOM, CAROL GLEDHILL, HUGO ) STEINITZ, MICHAEL FLAWS, ) EQUESTRIAN CONNECTION, and ) CHET STROYNY, ) ) Defendants ) Honorable ) Mary S. Schostok, (Fred Baird, Defendant-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding. _________________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court: Defendant Fred Baird filed this interlocutory appeal in connection with a suit by plaintiffs Millineum Maintenance Management, Inc., and Capital Development Group, LLC, which sought among other things administrative review of the Lake County Board's (Board) denial of their conditional-use permit application. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for a de novo hearing

No. 2--07--0728 to review the Board's decision to deny them a conditional-use permit, but the court certified two questions of law pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308, which allows this court in its discretion to allow an interlocutory appeal where "the trial court *** finds that the [order to be appealed] involves a question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the *** litigation." 155 Ill. 2d R. 308(a). On July 6, 2007, the trial court certified the following questions: "1. Whether a special use that is not adopted by a county board, but rather is denied by a county board, is subject to de novo judicial review as a legislative decision under 55 ILCS 5/5--12012.1, which states that 'Any special use ... adopted by the county board of any county ... shall be subject to de novo judicial review as a legislative decision[.]' 2. If 55 ILCS 5/5--12012.1 does apply to a denial of a special use permit, does it supersede the Second District's holding in [Gallik v. County of Lake, 335 Ill. App. 3d 325 (2002),] and preclude the court from reviewing the decision under the Administrative Review Law?" (Emphasis in original.) We granted Baird's petition for leave to appeal. In a recent case, Ashley Libertyville, LLC v. Village of Libertyville, 378 Ill. App. 3d 661 (2008), we were presented with the same certified questions as are presented here, but we did not reach those questions on their merits. Instead, we determined that, regardless of the answers to the certified questions, the grant or denial of the special-use permit at issue there was a legislative act not subject to administrative review, because the Village of Libertyville's municipal ordinance required that any special-use permit be granted " 'by ordinance duly adopted.' " (Emphasis omitted.) Libertyville, 378 Ill. App. 3d at 665, quoting Libertyville Zoning Code

Download Millineum Maintenance Management v. County of Lake.pdf