Summary
The Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, reviewed a challenge to the proposed demolition of the Rock Island County courthouse. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Illinois State Agency Historic Resources Preservation Act, the Public Building Commission Act, and bond covenants. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's dismissal and remanded the cause.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) when the Rule 304(a) appealability finding was entered after plaintiffs filed a Rule 307(d) interlocutory appeal.
- Whether plaintiffs had standing to challenge the proposed demolition under the Preservation Act and the Public Building Commission Act.
- Whether the planned demolition constituted an undertaking subject to the Illinois State Agency Historic Resources Preservation Act and therefore could not proceed until the Act's consultation requirements were completed.
- Whether the proposed demolition violated the Public Building Commission Act's site-approval requirements.
- Whether demolishing the courthouse exceeded the Public Building Commission's authorized purpose of providing a good and sufficient jail.
Holdings
- The appellate court had jurisdiction under Rule 304(a). The circuit court's later Rule 304(a) finding merely made its existing judgment immediately appealable and did not substantively alter the order or present a new case.
- The private organizations and individuals had standing to challenge the demolition because members of the public have a protectable interest in ensuring that public officials comply with public statutes. Landmarks Illinois and Frederick Shaw also had standing as bondholders, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation had standing under federal law to protect buildings it deemed historically significant.
- The proposed demolition was a state-agency undertaking subject to the Preservation Act because it threatened a historic resource and would be carried out pursuant to an IEPA stormwater permit. The demolition could not proceed until the Act's mandatory consultation and related procedural requirements were completed.
- Units of local government and their officers may be enjoined from proceeding with an undertaking that violates the Preservation Act's mandatory procedural requirements.
- The chief judge's administrative order did not exempt the demolition from the Preservation Act or prevent an injunction because the order was issued without notice, hearing, or an opportunity for interested parties to be heard.
- The proposed demolition did not violate the Commission Act's site-approval requirements. Once a project site has been properly selected and approved, the Board may enlarge the project area as need arises, and the Commission may demolish buildings within the enlarged area.
- The complaint failed to state a claim that demolishing the courthouse exceeded the PBC's purpose. The unappealed Henry County quo warranto judgment established that construction of the Annex was within the PBC's purpose, and the Board's legislative findings that demolition was necessary to maintain and secure the Annex were entitled to deference.
Key quotations
“These allegations are sufficient to state a claim that the proposed demolition is a state agency “undertaking” subject to the requirements of the Preservation Act.” (¶ 56)
“Accordingly, an “undertaking” under the statute (which includes any project requiring a state agency permit that threatens a historic resource) may not commence until the Preservation Act’s consultation requirements have been satisfied, regardless of whether it is carried out by the state, by a private party, or, as here, by a unit of local government.” (¶ 59)
“If the demolition planned by the defendants in this case cannot be enjoined until the statute’s consultation requirements have been satisfied, then those requirements would be rendered so toothless as to be meaningless.” (¶ 61)
“Affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded.” (¶ 94)
Factual background
The Rock Island County Board and Rock Island County Public Building Commission planned to demolish a 1896 courthouse located approximately 40 feet from a new courthouse and judicial annex. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources determined that the courthouse was eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and therefore was a historic resource under Illinois law. Because the demolition required an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency stormwater permit, IDNR initiated the statutory consultation process and directed defendants not to demolish the courthouse before that process was complete, but defendants announced that they intended to proceed.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against demolition of the courthouse, alleging violations of the Illinois State Agency Historic Resources Preservation Act, the Public Building Commission Act, and bond covenants. The circuit court denied the standing challenge but dismissed the statutory claims under section 2-615, dismissed the bond claims without prejudice, and dissolved the temporary restraining order. The appellate court granted emergency stays, held that it had jurisdiction and that plaintiffs had standing, affirmed dismissal of the Commission Act claims, reversed dismissal of the Preservation Act claim, and remanded with instructions to reinstate and extend the TRO pending completion of the statutory consultation process.
Remand instructions
Reverse dismissal of the Preservation Act claim, remand for further proceedings on that claim, and direct the circuit court to reinstate and extend the temporary restraining order barring demolition until the consultation process required by the Preservation Act is completed. The dismissals of the Commission Act claims were affirmed.