Case Law: Rights of Neighboring Townships

Village’s exercise of zoning authority governing land within 11/2 miles from its borders did not violate voting rights of individual citizens within that 1 1/2-mile area or voting rights of a neighboring township; trial court properly held that neighboring township lacked standing to challenge the statutory ranking of the zoning powers of municipalities versus townships.

The Illinois Appellate Court, 3d District, has affirmed a ruling by LaSalle County Circuit Judge Robert L. Carter.

The Village of Sheridan chose to exercise the extraterritorial zoning authority granted by the Illinois Municipal Code. This authority allowed Sheridan to enact a zoning ordinance governing the land within 11/2 miles from the village’s borders.

The village could exercise this power only if the land in question was not located in another municipality or included in another municipality’s extraterritorial zoning ordinance and if the county has not enacted a zoning ordinance of its own.

Plaintiff Northville is a township located near Sheridan, with some of the township’s land falling within the 11/2-mile extraterritorial zoning authority of Sheridan. A township may not exercise its zoning authority when the county has adopted a zoning ordinance or when the area is covered by a municipal zoning ordinance.

Plaintiffs Wilson and Dorothy Masters live on land that falls within both the Township of Northville and the extraterritorial zoning authority of Sheridan.

The plaintiffs claimed that the statute allowing Sheridan to exercise the extraterritorial zoning violated their voting rights because they were not allowed to vote for the officials who adopted, amended and administered the defendant’s zoning ordinance even though they were affected by the ordinance. The plaintiffs also argued that the classification of zoning authorities between townships and municipalities is unreasonable.

The trial court found that Northville lacked standing to bring a voting rights claim and that both Northvil le and the Masters lacked standing to bring a claim challenging the classification of zoning authority between townships and municipalities.

The appeals court affirmed. The court first noted that Northville could not claim that its voting rights had been abridged because Northville has no voting rights. Voting is a right enjoyed by individual citizens, not municipalities, corporations or townships, the appeals court said.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claims that the statute created an unreasonable classification. The court said that the Masters could not claim that they had any interest in the classification of zoning authorities except an incident interest arising out of Northville’s primary interest. The Masters did not enjoy any zoning authority that was abridged by the legislative scheme nor will they ever have such authority, the court said.

Because they sought to assert legal rights, not their own, they lacked standing on the issue and their claim was properly dismissed.
Northville also lacked standing to contest the constitutionality of the statutory ranking of the zoning authority of different units of government because a municipality does not have due process rights or equal protection rights that can be protected by challenging statutes as being unconstitutional, the appeals court said.

The court also said that the Masters’ voting rights claim was properly dismissed. The court said the basis for its decision on this issue was a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case. The court in that case found that every decision made by a city is likely to affect those living outside the city to some extent but that effect does not require that those living outside the city be allowed to vote in city elections.

Town of Northville, et al. v. Village of Sheridan, No. 3-95-0086. Justice Peg Breslin wrote the court’s opinion with Justices Allan L. Stouder and Tom M. Lytton concurring. Released Aug. 31, 1995. (7 pages)