## Facts

- A roughly two-acre parcel within Taylorville (the “Bland tract”) was long zoned R-1 for single-family residences and was surrounded by R-1, single-family homes.
- The owner/developer sought to build a 134-unit apartment building for elderly and handicapped residents.
- To proceed, the developer petitioned the City to (1) rezone the tract from R-1 to R-2 (multifamily) and (2) issue a special-use permit authorizing the proposed high-rise, multiple-family project.
- The planning commission recommended against the rezoning and special-use permit.
- Nearby and abutting landowners objected, citing increased traffic, safety risks for schoolchildren, and reduced property values.
- The city council adopted two ordinances: one rezoning the tract to R-2 and another granting the special-use permit.
- The ordinances imposed detailed, project-specific conditions (including infrastructure-related requirements) tailored to the proposed development.
- Neighboring landowners sued for declaratory relief to invalidate both ordinances; the trial court held them invalid as conditional/contract zoning and as arbitrary and unrelated to the general welfare.
- The City and the developer appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the rezoning and special-use ordinances, adopted with detailed project-specific conditions, constituted impermissible conditional or contract zoning.
2. Whether the ordinances were arbitrary, capricious, and not substantially related to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare under Illinois zoning standards.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment invalidating both ordinances.
- The court held the ordinances were impermissible conditional/contract zoning because they were enacted to support a particular private project and imposed conditions resembling a bargain rather than a generally applicable land-use policy.
- Independently, the court held the rezoning and special-use approvals were arbitrary and capricious and not justified by the general welfare.
- In assessing reasonableness, the court applied the LaSalle factors and credited findings that the development conflicted with the surrounding single-family character, would increase traffic and safety risks, and would diminish nearby property values.
- The court also noted evidence that alternative sites already zoned R-2 were available and better suited to the proposed development.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal zoning actions must be legislative in character and directed to the community’s welfare, not structured as a bilateral arrangement tied to a specific project.
- Zoning ordinances amounting to conditional or contract zoning—project-specific approvals contingent on negotiated obligations outside a generally applicable zoning scheme—are invalid.
- Rezoning and special-use determinations must substantially relate to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare; measures whose harms to surrounding owners outweigh demonstrated public benefit are arbitrary and invalid.
- Illinois courts evaluate the reasonableness of zoning decisions using the LaSalle factors, including nearby zoning and uses, effects on property values, suitability of the site, and relative hardship and public gain.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Taylorville’s rezoning and special-use approval for a 134-unit apartment project because the ordinances functioned as impermissible contract zoning and, under the LaSalle reasonableness analysis, were arbitrary and not sufficiently tied to the general welfare given the projected harms to the surrounding single-family neighborhood and the availability of more suitable sites.


Nolan v. City of Taylorville, 95 Ill. App. 3d 1099, 420 N.E.2d 1037 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981)