Village of Bensenville v. City of Chicago

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 2nd District Appellate » 2009 » Village of Bensenville v. City of Chicago

State: Illinois

Court: 2nd District Appellate

Docket No: 2-08-0769 Rel

Case Date: 01/07/2009

Preview:No. 2--08--0769 Filed: 1-7-09 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE VILLAGE OF BENSENVILLE, ROBERTA BAIRD, WILLIAM BAIRD, ARLENE BENSON, BERNARDO FLORES, GAIL FLORES, NELSON MARRERO, and ROBERT RACKOW, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Du Page County. ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) Nos. 07--CH--1620 v. ) 07--CH--2995 ) THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ) Honorable ) Kenneth L. Popejoy, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiffs, the Village of Bensenville, and Bensenville residents Roberta Baird, William Baird, Arlene Benson, Bernardo Flores, Gail Flores, Nelson Marrero, and Robert Rackrow (Residents), appeal the orders of the circuit court of Du Page County dismissing counts I through IV of their five-count second amended complaint against defendant, the City of Chicago (Chicago), and dissolving a preliminary injunction barring Chicago from demolishing structures in Bensenville pursuant to its plan to expand O'Hare International Airport (O'Hare). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND

No. 2--08--0769 The following facts set the backdrop of this matter. We will provide additional facts as needed in our discussion of the issues. In 2001, Chicago, as owner and operator of O'Hare, proposed the O'Hare Modernization Program (OMP), which would reconfigure and expand O'Hare's facilities, with the purpose of streamlining air traffic and reducing flight delays. The primary measure in the OMP is the installation of parallel runways to replace O'Hare's existing body of intersecting runways, to which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has attributed much of O'Hare's inefficiency. The OMP outlines a two-phased "Master Plan" for expansion. Phase 1 calls for the expansion of an existing runway, the reconfiguration of taxiways and a concourse, and the construction of two new runways, a new western satellite terminal, and an underground automated transit system or "people mover" connecting the new satellite terminal with the main terminal.1 Phase 2 envisions the expansion of another existing runway and the construction of two additional new runways as well as a "world gateway terminal." In 2003, the Illinois General Assembly enacted the O'Hare Modernization Act (Act) (620 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (West 2006)). In its prefatory findings, the legislature determined that "O'Hare cannot efficiently perform its role in the State and national air transportation systems unless it is reconfigured with multiple parallel runways." 620 ILCS 65/5(a)(2) (West 2006). The legislature found it "essential" that the OMP "be completed efficiently and without unnecessary delay" and that "acquisition of property as required for the [OMP] be completed as expeditiously as practicable." 620 ILCS 65/5(a)(6), (a)(7) (West 2006). To carry out Chicago's expansion efforts, it is empowered

1

An FAA document in the record states that construction of the western terminal is projected

to be "initiated" during Phase l but is "independent of other Phase 1 components." -2-

No. 2--08--0769 by the Act to "acquire by gift, grant, lease, purchase, [or] condemnation ***, or otherwise any right, title, or interest in any private property," including property outside Chicago's boundaries. 620 ILCS 65/15 (West 2006). The Act allows acquisition of property "that [Chicago] reasonably determines will be necessary for future use, regardless of whether final regulatory or funding decisions have been made." (Emphasis added.) 620 ILCS 65/15 (West 2006). The Act also contains a broad preemption clause providing: "Airport property shall not be subject to the laws of any unit of local government except as provided by ordinance of [Chicago]." 620 ILCS 65/25 (West 2006). The OMP identifies 615 parcels in Bensenville that Chicago believes it must acquire in order to complete the expansion project at O'Hare. These parcels, situated off the southwest corner of O'Hare, are collectively identified by the OMP as the "Southwest Acquisition Area" (Acquisition Area). The properties in the Acquisition Area are variously improved with residential, commercial, and industrial structures. Plaintiffs all own properties in the Acquisition Area. Chicago has initiated eminent domain proceedings against those properties. This suit, City of Chicago v. Forest Preserve District of Du Page County, No. 06--ED--111, is pending before Judge Stephen J. Culliton in the circuit court of Du Page County.2 As for the remaining properties in the Acquisition Area, it appears that Chicago has acquired the great majority of them, though precisely how many is unclear. It also appears that some were acquired through eminent domain proceedings and some through voluntary sales, but again the respective numbers are not clear from the record.

2

The record does not clearly show whether all of the Residents have properties involved in

the Culliton proceeding or, moreover, whether any properties owned by Bensenville itself are involved. The parties appear to assume that the Residents and Bensenville all have properties at stake in the Culliton proceeding, and we proceed on that assumption. -3-

No. 2--08--0769 In 2006 and 2007, Chicago drafted plans for demolishing structures it acquired or planned to acquire in the Acquisition Area. Chicago also developed a "Demolition Health and Safety Plan," which described Chicago's measures for insuring that the demolition would proceed without risk to public safety. On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs initiated the present action by filing a two-count complaint against Chicago. Count I sought a declaratory judgment that Chicago's demolition plans must comply with Bensenville's recently enacted Demolition Ordinance, which provides detailed permit requirements for all demolition within the Bensenville village limits. Bensenville Village Code

Download Village of Bensenville v. City of Chicago.pdf