## Facts

- John W. and Anna Twigg bought a 35-acre tract in unincorporated Will County, Illinois.
- The tract was zoned A-1 (agricultural), which required a minimum of 10 acres per residential lot.
- The Twiggs intended to create homesites for themselves and their adult children, with one child intending to keep horses on the property.
- After purchasing the land, the Twiggs sold a 10-acre portion along the eastern boundary.
- The Twiggs planned to divide the remaining 25 acres into:
  - two 10-acre parcels (for a son and a daughter), and
  - the remaining five acres into two 2.5-acre parcels (one for the Twiggs and one for another son).
- The proposed two 2.5-acre lots did not comply with the A-1 minimum-lot requirement.
- The Twiggs petitioned Will County to rezone the five-acre remainder from A-1 to E-2 (estate residence), which would allow 2.5-acre residential lots.
- Will County denied the rezoning request.
- The Twiggs filed suit in the Circuit Court of Will County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the A-1 classification was invalid as applied to their five-acre parcel.
- After trial, the circuit court ruled for the Twiggs and issued an injunction restraining Will County from enforcing A-1 zoning against the Twiggs’ property.
- Will County appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Twiggs proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that the A-1 agricultural zoning classification was arbitrary and unreasonable as applied to their five-acre parcel and that the requested E-2 classification was reasonable.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, reversed the circuit court’s judgment.
- The court held the Twiggs did not carry their burden to overcome the presumption that the county’s zoning ordinance was valid.
- The court concluded that, at a minimum, the reasonableness of applying A-1 zoning to the five-acre parcel was fairly debatable, requiring judicial deference to the county’s legislative judgment.
- Because the trial court’s declaration of invalidity and resulting injunction were based on an insufficient showing of unreasonableness, the appellate court set aside that relief by reversing the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning ordinances are presumed valid; the party challenging an ordinance bears the burden of rebutting that presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
- An as-applied zoning challenge requires proof that the existing classification is arbitrary and unreasonable and lacks a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
- A challenger must also show the requested zoning classification (or proposed use) is reasonable; showing that the requested use may be desirable or more profitable is not enough.
- Courts evaluate zoning reasonableness using familiar factors (often associated with La Salle and Sinclair), including: nearby uses and zoning, effect on surrounding property values, suitability of the property for the zoned use, and the balance between the owner’s hardship and the public’s benefit.
- If the ordinance’s application is fairly debatable on the evidence, courts defer to the legislative zoning decision rather than substituting their judgment for the local authority’s.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the injunction entered for the Twiggs because they did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that A-1 agricultural zoning was arbitrary or unreasonable as applied to their five-acre parcel, and the county’s decision to deny rezoning to E-2 remained at least fairly debatable, requiring deference to Will County’s zoning judgment.


Twigg v. County of Will, 627 N.E.2d 742 (1994)