Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County. No. 94--MR--429. Honorable Jack Hoogasian, Judge, Presiding.
Rule 23 Order Redesignated Opinion and Ordered Published August 18, 1996. Released for Publication August 21, 1996.
Presiding Justice McLAREN delivered the opinion of the court: Rathje and Hutchinson, JJ., concur.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mclaren
PRESIDING JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff, International Precision Components Corporation, filed this action seeking administrative review following the denial of the plaintiff's application for variation with the defendant, the Lake County Zoning Board of Appeals (the Board). The trial court upheld the decision of the Board. We affirm.
On April 6, 1994, the plaintiff filed an application for variation with the Board. In its application, the plaintiff sought two zoning variations for property it owned in an unincorporated area of Lake County, Illinois. Specifically, the plaintiff sought to use the property in question for light manufacturing and warehousing of materials and finished goods in connection with the plaintiff's plastic injection molding business. The plaintiff also sought the utilization of an adjacent railroad spur for shipping and receiving.
After recommendation from the Lake County Department of Planning, Zoning and Environmental Quality and a public hearing on the matter, the Board voted on the plaintiff's application for variation. Four members of the Board voted in favor of the application, two members voted against the plaintiff's application, and one member abstained. Because the plaintiff's application for variation did not receive five "affirmative" votes, the plaintiff's application was denied. All seven of the members of the Board signed the decision. The written decision of the Board was issued on July 25, 1994, and transmitted to the plaintiff's counsel on August 5, 1994.
On August 29, 1994, the plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and administrative review with the trial court. The plaintiff named as party defendants the Board and many others, but did not name the individual members of the Board as party defendants.
Subsequently, the Board filed its answer to count IV of the plaintiff's complaint, relating to administrative review, as well as a motion to dismiss counts I, II, and III. In response, the plaintiff filed its amended complaint, which sought only administrative review.
The Board then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to section 2--615(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2--615(e) (West 1994)). In its motion, the Board sought judgment because the plaintiff failed to name the individual members of the Board as necessary parties.
On May 3, 1995, the trial court granted the Board's motion for judgment on the pleadings. 735 ILCS 5/2--615(e) (West 1994). However, the trial court granted the plaintiff leave to serve the individual board members within 21 days.
On May 4, 1995, the plaintiff filed its second amended complaint for administrative review, which added, as party defendants, six members of the Board who voted on the plaintiff's application for a variation. On May 18, 1995, the plaintiff filed its third amended complaint, adding the member of the Board who abstained from the voting on the plaintiff's application as a party defendant.
On August 21, 1995, after holding hearings, the trial court found that the decision of the Board was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and entered judgment in favor of all of the defendants.
The plaintiff appeals this ruling, maintaining that the failure of a member of the Board to vote on the plaintiff's application constitutes concurrence in the action taken by the majority of those voting. See Prosser v. Village of Fox Lake, 91 Ill. 2d 389, 395, 63 Ill. Dec. 396, 438 N.E.2d 134 (1982); Lake County Forest Preserve District v. Northern Trust Bank/Lake Forest, N.A., 207 Ill. App. 3d 290, 294-95, 152 Ill. Dec. 182, 565 N.E.2d 715 (1990). The plaintiff also ...