Legal
What's New Research Government Site Index Home Meetings Directories About ICSC Search ICSC Sign On Publications Education Help Messages



ICSC Legal Database - CasesMonday, February 22, 1999 05:01 PM

Case Index:
00130

Citation:
Amoco Oil Co. v. Village of Schaumburg, 661 N.E.2d 380 (Ill. App.. ct. 1995)

Issue:
(1) Whether Village's twenty percent dedication requirement as a condition to approval of a special use permit

constitute" a taking? (2) Whether Village's repeal of ordinance containing dedication requirement in order to

avoid a

federal lawsuit is a reasonable exercise of legislative authority?

Facts:
Plaintiff gas station owner filed for a special use permit to make certain improvements to the property, including

the construction of a food shop and installation of modern fuel pump". The Village of Schaumburg required

dedication of 20 percent of the land, in order to widen the highway, a" a condition to approval. Plaintiff objected

to this condition on several occasions, but submitted a formal zoning application and filed suit in federal district

court. The court denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction on the ground" that Plaintiff had a sufficient

remedy at law for money damages. Village subsequently repealed the ordinance which granted the permit and

required the twenty percent dedication. The court then dismissed Plaintiff's federal action altogether, on the

grounds that Plaintiff had an appropriate state remedy. Plaintiff then filed suit in state court asserting that (1)the

dedication requirement constituted a taking; and (2) Village's repeal of the ordinance constituted an arbitrary and

 unreasonable use of municipal power amounting to a violation of Plaintiff's due process rights. The trial court

ruled in favor of Village on

the first count and in favor of Plaintiff on the second. Both sides appealed.

Holding:
Reversed in part and affirmed in part. First, there is a taking of property without just compensation when the

property sought bears little or no relationship or I proportion to the benefit conferred by the government. The first

count is therefore reversed because Plaintiff's proposed improvements will have little or no effect upon the need

for widening the adjacent highways. Second, a unicipality may only adopt, amend or repeal a zoning ordinance

in order to promote the public welfare. The second count is therefore affirmed because Village repealed the or

dinance solely in response to Plaintiff's federal lawsuit, which reason does not promote the public welfare.

Publication:
Legal Update

Date:
Winter 1995

Classification 1:
Condemnation/Eminent Domain

Classification 2:

Classification 3:

00130 - Legal Update - Winter 1995