For more on the legal dispute surrounding the high school bleacher project, as well as a host of sports law-related issues, see the February issue of Chicago Lawyer magazine, available Monday at chicagolawyermagazine.com. — Lisa Predko photo
SPRINGFIELD — The state’s high court has decided to settle a fight over a $1.2 million bleacher project.
The Illinois Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted two appeals in a case surrounding Crystal Lake South High School’s football field bleachers. Residents sued the school district for sidestepping city zoning laws to complete the 3,000-seat project.
The case began in 2013 when the school acted solely upon its board of education’s approval to construct the 51-foot-tall bleachers without city consent.
The city disapproved mid-project, saying the bleachers’ location in a single-family zoning district restricts them to a maximum 15-foot height and at least a 50-foot distance from property lines.
The board, however, disregarded the objection and continued with its plan.
At trial, McHenry County Circuit Judge Michael Chmiel ruled the project should follow zoning and stormwater laws, and he ordered the board to demolish the bleachers.
The board appealed, and the 2nd District Appellate Court, in an opinion written by Justice Joseph E. Birkett, upheld Chmiel’s decision.
The appeals court said the state constitution affords a “slight bias” toward municipalities’ interests over that of school districts because of its “broad and liberal grant of powers” to home-rule units.
Although the constitution does not directly compare school districts’ powers to municipalities’ powers, it does give deference to municipal ordinances over county-level ordinances.
“This primacy suggests a slight bias in favor of a local, or narrower, unit over a regional, or broader, unit” such as a school district, Birkett wrote.
The court also wrote that only one provision in the school code mentions zoning — it refers to “zoning changes, variations or special uses for property held or controlled by the school district.” That provision wouldn’t make sense if the school district did not have to comply with zoning laws, the court wrote.
The provision would be “wholly unnecessary and superfluous because the [b]oard would never have to seek a zoning change, variance or special use,” Birkett wrote.
Both the school board and the district’s superintendent, Leslie Schermerhorn, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Robert E. Swain, a partner at Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn LLP in Arlington Heights who represents the school board, said the idea that his argument revolves around exempting school districts from zoning is incorrect.
“We’re not arguing that school districts are exempt from zoning, but we are arguing that, in this case, property used for school purposes gets exempt from zoning,” he said.
“That’s an important difference because there are already provisions in the school code that say things like, ‘if a school district owns property that is not being used for school purposes … (then it is) subject to local codes.’”
Swain said he is glad the Supreme Court will hear the case because the subject matter is tricky.
“It’s a question that’s never before been decided by the courts … and it’s a question that we have struggled (with) with our clients for a long time,” he said. “If nothing else, it will be good to finally get a definitive ruling that we know we can follow going forward.”
Thomas R. Burney, of counsel at Zanck, Coen, Wright & Saladin P.C. in Crystal Lake who represents the city residents, said zoning has always been a fundamental power of municipalities.
He said the trial court held that there hasn’t been case law on the matter because schools typically respect the authority of municipalities’ zoning laws.
Swain, though, contends no such evidence exists.
“I think the trial court has always been clear that it was only conjecture on the part of the trial court,” he said. “School districts have handled and struggled with this issue and resolved it many different ways over the years.”
In Crystal Lake’s case, Swain said the school has gone through city officials for a permit only once, in order to put up a sign. He said the school even added a new wing without a single permit from the city.
“I know that it’s kind of been the conjecture that this must never have come up before because no one has ever doubted it, but no school attorneys will tell you that,” he said.
Burney said he never believed the board had merit to its claim.
“I would have expected that the clear language in the school code that authorizes school boards to seek zoning changes, etc., would have been pretty clear,” he said.
Burney said he anticipates the bleachers will remain standing for a while longer because of the high court’s briefing schedules and response deadlines.
“We’re probably talking about nine months, which is a tragedy because the people that I represent are having to live with this thing day in and day out,” he said.
Lisle A. Stalter, a Lake County assistant state’s attorney defending Schermerhorn in the case, was unavailable for comment.
The case is Jeff Gurba, et al. v. Community High School District No. 155, etc., Nos. 118332 and 118369 cons.