{ "id": 3225938, "name": "THE AURORA NATIONAL BANK OF AURORA et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE CITY OF AURORA, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Aurora National Bank v. City of Aurora", "decision_date": "1980-03-14", "docket_number": "No. 79-197", "first_page": "72", "last_page": "76", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "82 Ill. App. 3d 72" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "232 N.E.2d 316", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "89 Ill. App. 2d 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2544491 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/89/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 N.E.2d 1315", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 Ill. 2d 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2994807 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/74/0240-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 Ill. 552", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2804335 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/103/0552-01" ] }, { "cite": "382 N.E.2d 128", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 Ill. App. 3d 1038", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3331106 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/64/1038-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 N.E.2d 149", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. App. 2d 403", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5288570 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/67/0403-01" ] }, { "cite": "304 N.E.2d 452", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 Ill. App. 3d 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2460415 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/15/0415-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 551, "char_count": 11125, "ocr_confidence": 0.858, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.191992039561262e-08, "percentile": 0.4757356509974134 }, "sha256": "e026e0022b8d3dd09ab16fa81f46fe763037e17a2d68c5785dee799d504c8aff", "simhash": "1:777a12e4b0a915a6", "word_count": 1763 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:27:47.517302+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE AURORA NATIONAL BANK OF AURORA et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE CITY OF AURORA, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE LINDBERG\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, city of Aurora, brings this appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Kane County declaring an amendment to the city\u2019s zoning ordinance invalid as applied to property owned by plaintiffs, Aurora National Bank and Lavern Schramer. The central issue is whether the city substantially complied with notice and other procedural requirements in adopting the amendatory ordinance. We hold it did and therefore reverse the order of the Circuit Court of Kane County.\nOn November 7, 1977, the planning and development committee of the Aurora city council proposed an amendment to the city\u2019s zoning ordinance changing the classification of property in a two-block area from manufacturing and multifamily to one- and two-family residential. Notice of a public hearing on the proposed \u201cdown-zoning\u201d was mailed to all affected property owners, including plaintiffs, on December 23 and was later published in a local newspaper pursuant to section 11 \u2014 13\u201414 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 24, par. 11 \u2014 13\u201414). The notice stated in relevant part as follows:\n\u201cNotice is hereby given of a public hearing being held in the Aurora City Council Chambers, 44 East Downer Place, Aurora, Illinois, on Wednesday, January 11, 1978 at 7:00 p.m. (local time) by the Aurora Planning Commission to consider the adoption of a comprehensive zoning map amendment and a rezoning affecting certain properties within the following general area:\n\u2014the block bounded by Lincoln Avenue, Concord Street, and Evans Avenue; and\n\u2014the western one-half of the block bounded by Evans Avenue, Concord Street, Simms Street, and Logan Street The general areas of the proposed zoning map amendment and rezoning are legally described as follows:\n\u2014All of Langworth and Hoffman\u2019s Subdivision of Simm\u2019s Addition;\n-Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, and 27 in Block 4 of H.H. Evans 2d Addition\nAll within the City of Aurora, Kane County, Illinois.\nCertain properties within the area bounded by Lincoln Avenue, Concord Street and Evans Avenue may be rezoned from their present zoning classification of R-5 Multiple-family District to the R-4 Two-family District if they are currently in Multiple-family or Two-family use or to the R-3 Single-family District if they are currently in Single-family use.\nCertain properties within the western one-half of the block bounded by Evans Avenue, Concord Street, Simms Street, and Logan Street may be rezoned from their present zoning classification of M-l Manufacturing District Limited to the R-4 Two-family District if they are currently in Multiple-family or Two-family use, or to the R-3 Single-family District if they are currently in Single-family use.\nYOUR PROPERTY MAY BE RECOMMENDED FOR REZONING\nYou are invited to examine a detailed map showing the proposed rezonings at the offices of the Aurora Planning Department, 49 East Downer Place, Aurora, Illinois, and the Aurora City Clerk\u2019s Office, 44 East Downer Place, (City Hall building), Aurora, Illinois, during regular business hours. This map will also be available for inspection at the public hearing.\nThe public hearing may be adjourned from time to time to dates certain without additional notice.\nThe map showing the proposed rezonings may be modified after consideration of evidence, comments and suggestions at the public hearing.\nAll interested parties will be given an opportunity to be heard at the public hearing.\u201d\nBoth parties agree that the notice accurately describes all the property affected by the proposed amendment, but fails to articulate completely the nature of the zoning changes. Specifically, the notice states how property used for residential purposes will be rezoned, but does not indicate how vacant property and property used for manufacturing purposes will be classified. Some of the property owned by plaintiffs in the designated area is either vacant or being used for manufacturing purposes.\nPlaintiff Schramer attended the public hearing accompanied by counsel and testified in opposition to the down-zoning amendment but did not at that time object to the sufficiency of the notice. Plaintiffs later challenged the notice at the first city council meeting held following the public hearing. On May 16, 1978, the Aurora city council adopted the amendatory ordinance down-zoning all property within the designated areas to either one- or two-family residential. On May 31,1978, plaintiffs filed a two-count complaint seeking a declaration that the amendatory ordinance was null and void as applied to all non-residentially-used property. Count I alleged that notice of the public hearing failed to comply with section 11 \u2014 13\u201414 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 24, par. 11 \u2014 13\u201414) and that various other procedural requirements established by local ordinance for the processing of zoning amendments were not complied with. Count II alleged that the amendment was unconstitutional in that it bears no substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare. The trial court granted plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment as to count I and entered an order declaring the amendment null and void as applied to plaintiffs\u2019 property. This appeal followed.\nThe first issue we consider is whether the amendatory ordinance is invalid because the notice requirements of the enabling act and city ordinance were not complied with. Section 11^13 \u2014 14 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 24, par. 11 \u2014 13\u201414) provides only that \u201cNotice shall be given of the time and place of hearing \u201d * Section 15.4 \u2014 2 of the Aurora City Code provides that \u201c[a] 11 notices shall be in writing and shall give the time, place and purpose of such hearing * * 3.\u201d In addition to the requirements specified by statute, if has been held that the notice must contain an accurate description of the property affected by the proposed amendment. Kirk v. Village of Hillcrest (1973), 15 Ill. App. 3d 415, 304 N.E.2d 452.\nAlthough the notice challenged here correctly describes all the property affected by the down-zoning and contains the time, place and general purpose of the hearing, plaintiffs contend it is nevertheless defective because it fails to state adequately how each parcel will be rezoned. Unlike the notice requirements for a variation or special use (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 24, pars. 11 \u2014 13\u20146 and 11 \u2014 13\u20147), however, there is no requirement in section 11 \u2014 13\u201414 that the notice contain a statement of the changes contemplated by the proposed amendment. Nor is such a requirement imposed by the Aurora ordinance, thereby making it distinguishable from the municipal ordinances at issue in Bieretz v. Village of Montgomery (1966), 67 Ill. App. 2d 403, 214 N.E.2d 149, and Wheeling Trust 6- Savings Bank v. Village of Mount Prospect (1978), 64 Ill. App. 3d 1038, 382 N.E.2d 128. The notice issued in this case complied with both the State statute and city ordinance and the trial court erred in holding otherwise.\nThe next issue we consider is whether the amendatory ordinance is invalid for failure to comply with several procedural requirements imposed by the Aurora City Code for initiating and processing zoning amendments. The trial court found that the ordinance was invalid because the amendment was proposed by the planning and development committee of the city council and not by a party authorized to initiate amendments under section 15.3 of the city code. That section provides that \u201camendments may be proposed by the mayor or city council, the Planning Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals [or] any property owner 6 # The planning and development committee, however, has been delegated jurisdiction by the city council over \u201call matters pertaining to \u00b0 \u00b0 \u00b0 zoning\u201d (section 2 \u2014 79(c), Aurora City Code) and is therefore authorized to initiate amendments within the meaning of section 15.3.\nThe trial court also found the amendatory ordinance invalid because the down-zoning proceedings were not initiated by means of a formal ordinance or resolution. Plaintiffs contend that a municipal corporation can only exercise the powers conferred upon it by means of ordinance or resolution (Zanone v. Mound City (1882), 103 Ill. 552) and that this principle applies to initiating as well as enacting zoning amendments. The process of initiating the amendment, however, must be distinguished from the process of officially adopting the amendatory ordinance. The former is strictly an internal administrative or parliamentary procedure with none of the ramifications justifying the safeguards of formal legislative action. Plaintiff\u2019s theory of requiring enactment of an ordinance for the conduct of routine administrative business would place an intolerable burden on the operations of municipal government without any corresponding benefit.\nFinally, the trial court found the ordinance invalid because a written application for amendment was not filed with the city clerk as required by section 15.4 \u2014 1 of the Aurora City Code. That section provides as follows:\n\u201cAn application for an amendment shall be filed with the city clerk. The application shall be accompanied by such plans or data, and such other information, as specified by the Plan Commission and shall include a statement in writing by the applicant and adequate evidence showing that the proposed amendments will conform to the standards set forth therein. Copies of such application shall be forwarded by the city council to the Plan Commission with the request to hold a public hearing.\u201d\nPlaintiffs\u2019 argument that the application requirement is mandatory whenever an amendment is proposed overlooks the limited purpose of the ordinance. In our view, section 15.4 \u2014 1 is designed to provide the city council and plan commission with sufficient information to process zoning amendments requested by property owners or other non-govemmental interests. It would be both unreasonable and unnecessary to require the council to file such an application with itself when it is the entity that has proposed the amendment. We are not bound by a literal reading of statutes if that reading was not intended or leads to unreasonable rather than logical results. People v. Beam (1979), 74 Ill. 2d 240, 384 N.E.2d 1315; Board of Education v. Community High School District No. 211 (1967), 89 Ill. App. 2d 481, 232 N.E.2d 316.\nWe conclude that the city has complied with the notice and other procedural requirements of State and local law and that the trial court erred in declaring the amendatory ordinance invalid. Because the constitutional issues raised in count II of the complaint have not heretofore been addressed, the case is remanded for further proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.\nSEIDENFELD, P. J., and NASH, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE LINDBERG" } ], "attorneys": [ "Fred Kawalski, of Aurora, for appellant.", "Richard D. Schiller, of Goldsmith, Thelin, Schiller and Dickson, of Aurora, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE AURORA NATIONAL BANK OF AURORA et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE CITY OF AURORA, Defendant-Appellant.\nSecond District\nNo. 79-197\nOpinion filed March 14, 1980.\nFred Kawalski, of Aurora, for appellant.\nRichard D. Schiller, of Goldsmith, Thelin, Schiller and Dickson, of Aurora, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0072-01", "first_page_order": 94, "last_page_order": 98 }