under article ten course of the constitution public education submitted to the general and the general assembly has a clear through the school which is a pretty significant hole what exactly it is the building if you could justify it being a school purposes with a well known well we would have to convince people superintendent because of course the school doesn't do this unilaterally either but what they would have there right they would have that right yes we have that right suppose they have an animal science class can they start raising livestock in the middle of the town if the real superintendent approves that raise will look at it and recognize the problem we need to address here and you can look at it from the high level overall but at some level you must recognize the problem involved providing facilities here for schools to operate and whether we understand that in a very differential city of your in the sense that the general somebody has got an absolute discretion determine what schools may or may not do what we look at and recognize that when schools are  want to keep that's what convinced the supreme court of a county that the school board lack the power to seek abuse only that property which they could obtain just to make it more marketable but in that case it was in the school district's interest to voluntarily district in this case however the second district decision leaves her out a little bit of a loss there's no indication as to how she has how to handle these particular matters the school code is comprehensive with respect to what she has to do  the applications and she gets an application that meets all of the requirements that she has to consider she's required took prove it and if she doesn't that school district has the right to go to the state superintendent of schools to seek approval of that specific additionally provide that once that application is approved the school district is authorized to begin construction so and there are some very critical timelines there if the school the district does not start construction within six months the permit becomes invalid and then the process starts all over again so that there are some provisions within the school code that seem to address this one is that if this court determines that the city is an entity with notified where the construction the notification requirement requires an affirmative step on behalf of the city and there is no requirement that the school once the city identifies to the regional superintendent that they are interested or it is interested in knowing about a construction project in the region superintendent has a responsibility to notify the the jurisdiction of the application that's pending  city has board doesn't tell us that it would be a standing notification from the city to the regional superintendent that when she receives an application that they that they would like to receive a copy of it for  respect to the building code so they say they always send the application know the city has an affirmative duty pursuant to the school code to tell the regional superintendent that it has an interest in if she has that request from the local jurisdiction or the city then she is required to send the the city a copy of the plans once they are received her notify the city that they are  received and that's counsel just to follow up on justice burke's question to make sure i understand your is are under the school code section three days fourteen point twenty is that the section you're referring to yes and i specifications then the regional superintendent must send it to the city but absent that request there's no obligation is that which are yes and that was i was very what i was trying to indicate is that the first affirmative duty is  city municipality and once that registration is in place with the region superintendent she now has an affirmative duty to for that information there is nothing in the record to indicate that the city of crystal lake notified the regional superintendent that they had an interest in receiving copies or notification to the applications pending before them never registered and that is not the information that i have and of record is no that they had never registered with the original superintendent so that's just one of two possibilities for the city to be involved in a process where it would have jurisdiction if you also look at section two dash three points twelve of the school code there is a provision that talks about an are an agency with jurisdiction and obviously that's the key element in the school districts positions that their position is that they don't have jurisdiction the region superintendent is not objecting to that but if this court determines that the city does have jurisdiction they have the ability to notify the school district that they have jurisdiction and that it ordinances be complied with and once that goes and once those notifications are made then they have to certify them to the regional superintendent so i'm victor filipina the philippine wa firm i'm here on behalf of third party and actually city of pistillate i'll be splitting my time with the council for the plaintiffs thomas bernie and so that's why i have my stopwatch running  education but also a healthful environment rights of due process the protection of private property rights and remedies and there are governmental cooperation this case addresses how to reconcile the myriad interests that we the people seek to promote for government fortunately a legal issue in this case is easily resolved the general assembly has plenary power over schools as it does assembly has expressly authorized local school boards to seek relief from those laws through the established zoning procedures looking at the broad scheme of the general assembly as a whole it conferred local zoning power without exception or exemption to schools from zoning but the general assembly did empower the school districts to seek relief from those zoning regulations through the standard zoning procedures and the use of the local zoning process to reconcile the myriad policy goals of the more than seven thousand governments in illinois are charged to pursue this is been well recognized by the court in most prominently in the wilmette park this court ruled that a park district had no immunity from zoning because it was not expressed in the statute and instead the park district was required to engage in a local zoning process so that the impact the park district activities on adjoining properties could be addressed using local zoning processes as prescribed the moment park district not only fosters the constitutional objective of intergovernmental cooperation  and this port in the act they stated that intergovernmental cooperation is a two way street it cannot be used to thwart another local government stitched tory mission with that in mind it's easy to see that zoning and school district activities from a land use perspective can be easily reconciled well within the confines of what the general assembly has set out in its stanchions but that's not the end of the zoning process this court again has expressed very clearly in cases such as people actually learn vs villages while at the local zoning process is also a mechanism for protecting the due process rights of nearby property in light of the protection of local government statutory mission that is proof provided for the wilmot park district case and the many common interests at unisa palaces and school district share for the enhancement of their communities the risk to the legitimate educational mission of schools is not challenged by the local zoning process now and also for the school district and suggested that there is no  there is no such concern because the schools are covered by the life safety code but school districts life safety code and the review of the legal i'm sorry the regional superintendent nasa plans on the general assembly has clearly distinguish between building regulations on the one hand and zoning regulations this is out both in a matter of statutory grants and the structure of the code and building regulations are a consistent uniformly applied set of standards and the regional superintendent looks at what is proposed to be constructed on school grounds to ensure that was building standards are met in contrast zoning looks at the impact of a use of one property and nearby properties as both the united states supreme court and the illinois supreme court have recognized zoning is can textual and it's based on circumstances and locality such considerations cannot be addressed  single state white code and then is wise zoning regulations have been delegated by the general assembly to help so a building may be safely constructed in any location in accordance policies that are dictated in the range of things are not policies that are dictated from the state board of education of the general assembly these are local decisions made by local school boards as to what they're going to do so these are not statewide concerns these are local determinations secondly what the what these owning process does is not look at well what is the educational impact it's an internal review and that's something appropriately done by the school boards and the regional superintendent adjoining properties that the zoning process is all about now is it possible that any disappear ality might decide well we're not going to stop there we're going to start looking into the core issues of educational policy it's possible but your court has previously stated that there's a way of protecting against that and that is if a municipality goes beyond reasonable regulations on land use condoms as you all know there are very well established princip is but is there a process for handling it very clearly here is and one that his work five also suggested that there's another line of cases that says we have no business in this because localities aren't allowed his own regional governments well first of all let's be frank school code we have the state board of education we have the regional superintendent and we have local school districts they may cross multiple boundaries so too does the city of crystal lake you look at different governmental  but each of them are local governmental in their units in their activities and it's not whether or not they cross over boundaries it just happens it is whether or not they center district versus display and there were three of them the first one the court said zoning powers do not prevent a regional government from exercising eminent domain powers the second case which was an attempt turn concerning addressed in this in the illinois environmental protection so this court has never said that regional governments are immune from zoning but even if you take the b r t eight days involving the pace bus yard in the city of evanston with  hold back some of the regulatory authority either they're in or they're out and there's an opt out provision in the r t a because evanston was not opted out they couldn't on the one hand take the benefits of the regional system and on the other hand try to control it independently of everything else so those pieces are fully distinguish this there's been discussion in this case about home rule and frankly the whole discussion is an unnecessary one is your honour's no this court if there's a way of resolving something without getting to a constitutional issue should so resolve it and this is something that can be fully and easily resolved by looking at the entirety of the only compiled statutes and the way authority has been divided between schools by the general assembly so you don't need to get to the constitutional issue nevertheless if you get to the stubhub analysis as to the city's home will power that clearly shows that this case was properly decided by the second district the nature and extent of the problem is purely local the property is located in crystal lake the impacts are all on crystal lake properties it is essential character of zoning to be that is why the general assembly has so delegated zoning powers to localities general somebody could have conceivably exercise its own zoning powers from the statewide level or even delegated to the city on the board of education it municipalities there were the act there they're the ones at the place where the action is likewise when you're looking at zoning in the nature of its local impact and the local circumstances  to whether or not it's proper the impacts are clearly local and the solution must be addressed locally and historically it's been local as this court had noted in the sex in the cook county vs so if you go through the home rule analysis plainly the second was there is also some thought that the educational goals of the state are singular in their purpose i think that we all have a high value for education but that doesn't mean that education that council responded to what was there's an agricultural school in chicago well there's a case it specifically says that these school board of education or the chicago board of education is subject to zoning that's the h cited in our materials unlike the building code or the life safety code zoning is a set of rules to manage a process that process seeks to balance the broadly unused goals of a community against the rights of property owners and the interest of here by property community land use goals are important because they often dictate how community investments in infrastructure such as water and sewer and roads is dictated by the land use is endangered if the public health doesn't have the public infrastructure doesn't have sufficient capacity to service the private property rights of owner of the neighbors have similar work but from different perspectives it's managing these different respective interests that the zoning process takes care my friends of the pictures of i'll get started you the question that i that the neighbors of yes to put before you at the that we put before you is can an adjacent window or who lives next to school property over the school claims that it's a building  constructing a structure a for school purposes can it be totally denied the opportunity of fundamental rights of due process and we say that the answer is no that the due process commands that adjacent neighbors are given this opportunity the pictures on your left show from the deck of an adjacent property owner what the bleachers looked like before they constructed the picture on your right shows that picture from the same deck after they were constructed the pictures hardly tell the story through the front doors and you look to the top of the pillars that's as high as the structure goes and when you look at this entire buildings that isn't building that's the way of the structure that the school district chose to put  a client's property this is twenty four seven for twenty one months it's been living with this the appellate court when it was criticizing the tortured construction of article ten of the guts to sion i indicated that the school district looks at the school code as being able to do what ever it wants whatever pleases on its property i would ask the court to see that right from the beginning of their brief they say this is an issue for was constructed a year record view tourney general at the request of the state superintendent of schools requested an opinion as to whether or not schools are subject to local zoning in a well reasoned opinion the attorney general said schools are subject to local zoning they say it's a case of first impression but one has to question why did they seek a declaration of rights before a court before the local court why didn't they give the city where the property owners an opportunity to go into court to stop enjoying this before it got started it spent a million dollars on it the fundamental flaw is that they a failed in their myopic view about article ten to consider the bill of rights in article one framework of of the right to notice is right to be heard of the right to present your objections that all of those are are fundamental and yet the school district position is completely in a us to this and the school district nonstarter but it's not it's not like that they should be a stranger to the due process clause this court ysaye lewis when it did that wonderful an ellipsis of what processes is do found that school districts are subject due process clause of the constitution so there is no question about that up we believe that this struck me is a testament to the absurdity of the schools and that was actually part of the analysis of you your because both the school district and the park district were parties there and the results differ and the reason the result of birth was because of the constitutional implications surrounding schools none of which are a concern when it comes to parks on a very practical though we should consider this is well there is as we discuss with the school a statewide agency one state board of education a regional park district holds where there is a separate hearing opportunity for news of allergies as the partner lands none of that exist at the parks so in the absence of any of those alternatives and surely zoning is about the best option available but when it comes to case number one one eight three three two one one one eight three six nine jeff gerber at all versus community high school district number one fifty five will be taken under advisement as agenda number twenty one