Nos. 2--02--0635 & 2--03--0200 cons.

________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

________________________________________________________________

THE CITY OF WAUKEGAN, a	)	Appeal from the Circuit Court

Municipal Corporation; THE	 ) 	of Lake County.

WAUKEGAN CITY COUNCIL, the	)	

Governing Body of the City of	)	

Waukegan; DANIEL T. DREW, Mayor	)

of the City of Waukegan, and 	)

JOHN BALEN, SAM CUNNINGHAM,	)

J.A. "TONY" FIGUEROA, FRANK	)

HARRIS, Jr., RICHARD HYDE, 	)

PATRICK R. NEEDHAM, JOHN  	)

RICKERD, and LAWRENCE TENPAS, 	)

Members of the Waukegan City	)

Council; RUSS TOMLIN, Director 	)

of Planning and Zoning; and	)

CHUCK PERKEY, Building and	)

Planning Director,	)	

	)

  Plaintiffs and Counter-	)	

  defendants-Appellees and	)

  Cross-Appellants,	)

	)	

v.	)	No.	01--CH--1777

	)

THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 	)

PROTECTION AGENCY, 	)

	)

  Defendant and Cross-Appellee	)

	)

	)

(North Shore Sanitary District,	)	Honorable

Defendant and Counterplaintiff-	)	Stephen E. Walter,

Appellant and Cross-Appellee).	)	Judge, Presiding.

________________________________________________________________

	JUSTICE BOWMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

The City of Waukegan (the City) filed suit against the North

Shore Sanitary District (the District) and the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (the Agency) in the circuit court

of Lake County, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the District’s proposed construction of a "Biosolids

Reuse Project" in Waukegan.   The District filed a counterclaim

that, inter alia, asked the court to declare that the City’s zoning and building regulations do not apply to it.

The District appeals the denials of (1) its motion for

judgment on the pleadings as to counts III through VI of the City’s

amended complaint, and (2) its motion for summary judgment on

counts I and II of its counterclaim.  The City has filed a cross-

appeal in which it asserts that the trial court erred in granting

the District’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and the

Agency’s motion to strike and dismiss, both as to counts I and II

of the City's amended complaint.

The District has also appealed the trial court's order of

February 18, 2003, denying its motion for a temporary restraining

order and granting the City's motion for a temporary restraining

order.  We have consolidated the two appeals.

BACKGROUND

The District is a governmental unit created by statute (see 70

ILCS 2305/0.1 et seq. (West 2000)) to provide sewage disposal and waste water treatment services to the 11 municipalities located

within its designated area.  The District operates a waste water

treatment facility in Waukegan and seeks to construct on its own

property the "Biosolids Reuse Project" (project). The project is

intended to allow the District to create a usable by-product with

the sludge that the District currently transports to a landfill.  The Agency issued the District the necessary permits for

constructing the project.

The City is a municipal corporation and home rule unit of

government.  The District alleges that the City has repeatedly

sought to impede the project by changing its ordinances, passing a

moratorium on the issuance of building permits for the area where

the District’s property is located, and opposing the issuance of

permits by the Agency.  The City maintains that the District must

comply with its zoning and building ordinances.

On December 6, 2001, the City filed a complaint against the

District and the Agency seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

Counts I and II of the City’s amended complaint ask the court to

declare that, under section 39(c) of the Environmental Protection

Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/39(c) (West 2000)), (1) the project

constitutes a "new pollution control facility" that requires local

siting approval before the Agency may issue permits, and (2) the

Agency’s permits are void due to the District’s failure to obtain

local siting approval.  The City further requests an injunction to

prevent the District from commencing construction without local

siting approval.  Counts III through VI of the amended complaint

ask the court to declare that the District must comply with the

City’s zoning and building ordinances and to enjoin the District

from constructing its project until it complies.

In its counterclaim, the District seeks, inter alia, a declaration that it is not subject to regulation by the City and an injunction preventing the City from imposing its zoning ordinances

upon the project.

The District moved for judgment on the pleadings and argued

with respect to counts I and II of the amended complaint that the

City may not collaterally attack the Agency’s issuance of permits

to the District.  The Agency made this argument as well in its

motion to strike and dismiss counts I and II of the amended

complaint.  

As for counts III through VI of the amended complaint, the

District contended that a line of cases that the parties refer to

as the "Des Plaines Trilogy" exempts the District from complying with the City’s zoning and building codes.  The City responded that

amendments to section 39(c) of the Act have overruled the "Des Plaines Trilogy" and require the District to comply with the City’s ordinances.

On June 18, 2002, the trial court entered an order granting

both the District’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and the

Agency’s motion to strike and dismiss with respect to counts I and

II of the amended complaint.  The court agreed with the District

and the Agency that the City may not collaterally attack the

Agency’s permitting decision.  On that same date, the court denied

the District’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the

remaining counts of the amended complaint on the ground that

section 39(c) of the Act requires the District to comply with the

City’s zoning and building ordinances.  For the same reason, the court denied the District’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim.  In its June 18 order, the court made findings that

there was no just reason to delay the enforcement of or the appeal

from its rulings on the motion for summary judgment, the motion for

judgment on the pleadings, and the motion to strike and dismiss. 

The court also certified the following questions for appeal,

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (155 Ill. 2d R. 308):

	"(1) Whether under the Des Plaines Trilogy line of

authority,  if the North Shore Sanitary District is exercising

power within its statutory grant, such exercise is subject to

zoning restrictions imposed by Waukegan, a host home rule    

  municipality[.]

	(2) Whether the amendments to the Environmental

Protection Act have over ruled the Des Plaines Trilogy line of

authority under the facts of this case[.]"                  

The District filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s

order and the City filed a timely cross-appeal.

 While the District's initial appeal was pending, it attempted

to start constructing the project before the expiration of its air

permit on March 11, 2003.  The City physically prevented the

District from beginning construction by placing police officers and

salt trucks at the entrance to the construction site.  The City

also threatened to fine the District and to arrest the District's

contractors.  The District and the City filed cross-motions for

temporary restraining orders.

	On February 18, 2003, the court granted the City's motion

for temporary restraining order and denied the District's motion

for temporary restraining order.  The court based its decision on

its earlier ruling that the District is not exempt from complying

with the City's zoning and building ordinances.  Because the City

denied the District's zoning applications, the District was

attempting to begin construction without the required permits.  The

District filed a timely petition for leave to appeal the trial

court's order (see 188 Ill. 2d R. 307(d)).  We granted the

District's motion to consolidate its appeals.

No. 2--02--0635

Before reaching the merits of this case, we first address the

District’s motion to amend the record with minutes from a Waukegan

city council meeting on October 21, 2002, at which the city council

denied the District’s petitions for a conditional use permit and

for a variance.  According to the District, the addition of these

minutes to the record on appeal will allow us to decide whether the

City’s actions have exceeded the scope of its home rule authority. 

The City objects to the supplementation of the record, arguing that

the minutes are not relevant to the issues before us.  We agree

with the City.  First, the District seeks to supplement, rather

than amend, the record.  Moreover, the minutes that the District

seeks to add to the record go to the merits of the case, which are

not before us on appeal. Consequently, we deny the District’s motion to amend the record.

CERTIFIED QUESTIONS

The first certified question asks us to answer whether, under

the "Des Plaines Trilogy," the District is subject to the City's zoning restrictions if the District is exercising power within its

statutory grant.  As we understand it, this question asks us to

consider only the Des Plaines cases and not section 39(c) of the Act.  The second certified question asks whether the amendments to

section 39(c) of the Act have overruled the Des Plaines cases.  To facilitate our analysis of these questions, we first set out the

relevant case law and statutory provisions.

In a series of cases, our supreme court addressed efforts by

the City of Des Plaines (Des Plaines) to impose its zoning

ordinances upon the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater

Chicago (sanitary district) with respect to the sanitary district's

proposed construction of a water reclamation plant.  In City of Des Plaines v. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 48 Ill. 2d 11 (1971) (Des Plaines I), the supreme court determined that Des Plaines' zoning ordinance was not applicable to the

sanitary district's power of eminent domain.  Des Plaines next

asserted that, pursuant to the home rule powers granted by the 1970

Illinois Constitution, it had the authority to enforce its zoning

ordinance against the sanitary district.  In City of Des Plaines v. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 59 Ill. 2d 29 (1974) (Des Plaines II), the supreme court rejected this argument, holding that its decision in Des Plaines I was res judicata.  Des Plaines then enacted a health ordinance that required a permit

prior to the construction of any "sewage works" that fell within

the parameters set forth in the ordinance.  The supreme court in Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago v. City of Des

Plaines, 63 Ill. 2d 256 (1976) (Des Plaines III), concluded that the application of the ordinance to the sanitary district, a

regional entity serving numerous municipalities, did not pertain to

Des Plaines' government and affairs and thus was not within its

home rule powers.  Des Plaines III, 63 Ill. 2d at 260-62.  The court concluded that allowing a regional facility to be controlled

by a part of the region would be incompatible with the purpose for

which the regional entity was created.  Des Plaines III, 63 Ill. 2d at 261.

Five years after the court issued its decision in Des Plaines III, the General Assembly amended section 39(c) of the Act to provide as follows:

	"No permit for the development or construction of a new

facility other than a new regional pollution control

facility may be granted by the Agency unless the

applicant submits proof to the Agency that the applicant

has secured all necessary zoning approvals from the unit

of local government having zoning jurisdiction over the

proposed facility." 1981 Ill. Laws 3574. 

Section 39(c) was later amended to provide as follows: 

		"Except for those facilities owned or operated by 

sanitary districts organized under the Metropolitan Water

	Reclamation District Act, and except for new pollution

control facilities governed by Section 39.2, and except

for fossil fuel mining facilities, the granting of a

permit under this Act shall not relieve the applicant

from meeting and securing all necessary zoning approvals

from the unit of government having zoning jurisdiction

over the proposed facility." 415 ILCS 5/39(c) (West

2000).

Prior to the amendments, "the only requirements in the Act

pertaining to local governmental involvement in permitting

decisions were that local governments were required to be notified

when a request for a refuse-disposal permit had been requested, and

a public hearing had to be held in the county where the proposed

refuse-disposal facility would be located."  Village of Carpentersville v. Pollution Control Board, 135 Ill. 2d 463, 468-69 (1990).

The District contends that, pursuant to  Des Plaines III, the City's home rule power does not extend over a regional entity such

as itself that is operating within its statutory mandate.  The City

responds that Des Plaines III is inapplicable to the facts at hand and that section 39(c) of the Act has overruled Des Plaines III.

The first certified question asks whether, under the Des Plaines cases, the District is subject to the City's zoning regulation if the District is carrying out its statutory mandate. 

If one limits the applicable law to these cases, as the trial court

has asked us to do, then the answer to the first certified question

is no.  The court in Des Plaines III held that a municipality lacks the authority to regulate a regional sanitary district that serves

multiple communities.  In the case at bar, the City is just 1 of 11

localities served by the District.  Consequently, under Des Plaines III, the City's home rule power would not extend over the District. This conclusion, though, does not resolve the ultimate question of

whether the amendments to section 39(c) have enlarged the scope of

the City's zoning authority so as to effectively overrule the Des Plaines cases.

We believe that the answer to this question is found in this

court's earlier decision in Village of Carpentersville v. Pollution Control Board, 176 Ill. App. 3d 668 (1988), and the subsequent affirmance by our supreme court (Carpentersville, 135 Ill. 2d 463). In Carpentersville, this court held that a condition in a permit issued by the Agency did not preempt a local zoning ordinance. 

Carpentersville, 176 Ill. App. 3d at 671.  In so holding, we noted that the language of section 39(c) of the Act (then Ill. Rev. Stat.

1987, ch. 1111⁄2 , par. 1039(c)) plainly and unambiguously provided

"that the issuance of a permit by the Agency does not excuse a

permit holder from complying with local zoning ordinances."

Carpentersville, 176 Ill. App. 3d at 672.  

The supreme court agreed that, pursuant to the amendments to

section 39(c), permits issued pursuant to the Act do not preempt

local zoning ordinances.  Carpentersville, 135 Ill. 2d at 469.  The court rejected the argument that a municipality may not impose

requirements that directly conflict with the State's uniform

program of environmental regulation.  The court noted that the

General Assembly may constitutionally allow local zoning ordinances

to play a role in Illinois's coordinated pollution control plan,

even if those ordinances might conflict with uniform, statewide

standards.  Carpentersville, 135 Ill. 2d at 473.

The District contends that Des Plaines III, rather than section 39(c), applies in this instance because the supreme court

did not base its decision in Des Plaines III on the Act.  The District further argues that, under Des Plaines III, the City is not a "unit of government having zoning jurisdiction over the

proposed facility" because regulation of the District is not within

its home rule power.   The District's reliance on Des Plaines III is misplaced.  At the time Des Plaines III was decided, the amendments to section 39(c) had not yet been enacted.  In our view,

the amendments make clear that the General Assembly intended to

enlarge the role of local governments with respect to zoning. 

Consequently, Des Plaines III and its predecessors do not apply here. 

The District also attempts to distinguish Carpentersville on the ground that the permit holder in Carpentersville was a private entity.  This argument is not persuasive because section 39(c) does

not distinguish between private entities and regional ones. 

Instead, the General Assembly exempted only those sanitary

districts organized under the Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District Act, as well as new pollution control facilities and

fossil fuel mining facilities.  See 415 ILCS 5/39(c) (West 2000). 

Clearly, if the General Assembly had intended to exempt all

regional sanitary districts, it would have said so expressly.

We also find unpersuasive the District's argument that

Carpentersville is inapplicable because the issue there was preemption rather than home rule power.  In our view, the

interpretation of section 39(c) does not change merely because the

District propounds a different theory than did the appellant in

Carpentersville.  The ultimate question in both cases was whether, under section 39(c) of the Act, a local government may enforce its

zoning ordinances against a permit holder.      

Accordingly, we determine that, in those cases governed by

section 39(c) of the Act, the amendments to section 39(c) have

overruled Des Plaines III and its predecessors.  Our holding is limited to those cases falling under section 39(c) because, as the

District points out, courts have recently applied Des Plaines III in holding that a local government may not require a regional

entity acting within its statutory mandate to comply with local

zoning ordinances.  See County of Lake v. Fox Waterway Agency, 326 Ill. App. 3d 100 (2001); City of Joliet v. Snyder, 317 Ill. App. 3d 940 (2000).  The difference between these cases and the case at bar

is that none of the other cases involve a statute like section

39(c), in which the General Assembly provided that compliance with

local zoning ordinances is not excused.  Consequently, we do not

hold generally that Des Plaines III is overruled. 

Accordingly, we answer the first certified question in the

negative.  We answer the second question in the affirmative,

limited to the facts of this case.  Further, because we may, in the

interests of judicial economy and reaching an equitable result, go

beyond the certified questions presented and consider the propriety

of the order that gave rise to the appeal (see Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204, 208 (1995)), we affirm the order denying the

District's motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion for

summary judgment on the issue of whether the District must comply

with the City's zoning regulations.

BUILDING REGULATIONS

Likewise, the interests of judicial economy and reaching an

equitable result allow us to consider the denial of the District's

motions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment with

respect to the applicability of the City's building code. 

Generally, the denial of a motion for summary judgment (Board of Library Directors v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, 215 Ill. App. 3d 69, 73 (1991)) or a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Fabian v. Norman, 138 Ill. App. 3d 507, 509 (1985)) is not a final and appealable order, and the inclusion of Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)) language in the order does not make it so

(Blott v. Hanson, 283 Ill. App. 3d 656, 660 (1996)).  That being said, the trial court's ruling on the building code issues were

part of the order that gave rise to the appeal.  Moreover, the same

issues that form the basis of the certified questions, namely, the

applicability of the Des Plaines cases, also form the basis of the parties' arguments with respect to the applicability of the City's

building codes.  Accordingly, pursuant to Bright, we find it appropriate to address these issues even though they would not

otherwise be properly before us on appeal.  See also Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. v. Gleason, 181 Ill. 2d 460, 472 (1998). 

During oral argument, the District conceded that, to the extent the City's building regulations meet the requirements set

forth in Lake County Public Building Comm'n v. City of Waukegan, 273 Ill. App. 3d 15 (1995), the District must abide by them.  The

District argues, however, that by imposing a moratorium on building

in the area where the District's property is located, the City has

used its building code to frustrate the District's statutory

purpose.  According to the District, the City has used its building

code in such a restrictive way that the principles of Des Plaines III should apply to preclude the City's actions.  For the reasons set forth above and in Lake County Public Building Comm'n, we decline to apply the reasoning of Des Plaines III to the case at bar. 

In Lake County Public Building Comm'n, this court held that the Lake County Public Building Commission was not exempt from the

City of Waukegan's building regulations when constructing a skywalk

connecting the Babcox Justice Building with the Courthouse Square. 

At issue was the City of Waukegan's regulation requiring payment of

a building permit fee.  We held that the City of Waukegan's

building regulations were addressed exclusively to local concerns,

even though they might be applied to entities that carry on

activities in more than one municipality.  Lake County Public Building Comm'n, 273 Ill. App. 3d at 22.  We noted that there were no provisions in the Public Building Commission Act (50 ILCS 20/1 et seq. (West 1994)) exempting the commission from complying with the ordinances of its host municipalities.  We also found it

significant that there was no evidence in the record indicating

that the City of Waukegan was using its building ordinances to

frustrate the commission's activities.  Lake County Public Building Comm'n, 273 Ill. App. 3d at 22.  

In the case before us, the trial court made no determination

as to whether the City's building moratorium or any other building

regulation frustrated the District's purpose.  Consequently, this

issue is not before us on appeal.  It remains for the trial court

to determine whether any of the City's building regulations

frustrate the District's statutory purpose. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's denials

of the District's motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim with respect to the

applicability of the City's building code.

CROSS-APPEAL

The City has filed a cross-appeal challenging the trial

court’s ruling that the City may not obtain judicial review of the

Agency's permitting decision.  We agree with the trial court and

hold that City of Elgin v. County of Cook, 169 Ill. 2d 53 (1995), is controlling on this issue.

Under section 39(c) of the Act, the Agency may not issue a

permit for a "new pollution control facility" unless it has

received proof from the applicant that it has obtained local siting

approval.  Section 39(c) specifically provides as follows, in

relevant part:

		"Except for those facilities owned or operated by

sanitary districts organized under the Metropolitan Water

Reclamation District Act, no permit for the development

or construction of a new pollution control facility may

be granted by the Agency unless the applicant submits

proof to the Agency that the location of the facility has

been approved by the County Board of the county if in an

unincorporated area, or the governing body of the

municipality when in an incorporated area, in which the

facility is to be located in accordance with Section 39.2

of the Act."  415 ILCS 5/39(c) (West 2000).

In City of Elgin, the supreme court held that the plaintiff municipalities were statutorily precluded from seeking judicial

review of the Agency's decision to issue a development permit for

a pollution control facility.  The court explained the relevant

portions of the Act as follows: 

"An Agency decision granting a permit cannot be appealed to

the Pollution Control Board, which is only authorized to hear

appeals where the Agency denies a permit or grants only a

conditional permit. (415 ILCS 5/40(a)(1) (West 1992).) 

Further, the Act only authorizes judicial review of Pollution

Control Board permitting decisions, and not Agency permitting

decisions.  (415 ILCS 5/41(a) (West 1992).)  Consequently,

judicial review of Agency decisions granting development

permits for solid waste disposal sites is precluded and the

instant plaintiffs cannot challenge the Agency's decision to 

grant the balefill development permit."  City of Elgin, 169 Ill. 2d at 61.

The court further noted that the Act authorizes the filing of

enforcement actions against parties who violate environmental

regulations.  415 ILCS 5/31(b), 43(a), (b) (West 1992).  Therefore,

if the development at issue causes any actual harm to the

environment, there are safeguards in place to stop any further

activity.  The court noted that the plaintiff Kane County failed to

allege any violations of the Act that would allow it to bring an

enforcement action.  City of Elgin, 169 Ill. 2d at 79.  Similarly, in the case at bar, there is no basis under the Act for the City to

seek review of the Agency's permitting decision by the Pollution

Control Board or to bring an enforcement action. 

The City attempts to distinguish City of Elgin by arguing that it is challenging the Agency's jurisdiction to award the permit

and, therefore, may attack the Agency action at any time in court

(see Daniels v. Industrial Comm'n, 201 Ill. 2d 160, 166 (2002) ("Because agency action for which there is no statutory authority

is void, it is subject to attack at any time in any court, either

directly or collaterally")).  This argument does not withstand

scrutiny. 

Although the City couches its argument in terms of

"jurisdiction," it is clear that the City is really challenging the

merits of the Agency's decision to issue permits to the District

and, in particular, the Agency's determination that the project

does not constitute a "pollution control facility."  However, the

City has not cited any authority for the proposition that proof of

local siting approval is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the

issuance of a permit.  

The City relies on Kane County Defenders Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 139 Ill. App. 3d 588 (1985), as support for its argument that the local siting process is so critical that every

step of the process is considered to be jurisdictional.  Kane County Defenders, however, holds no such thing.  

This court held in Kane County Defenders that the "notice requirements *** in section 39.2(b) of [the Act] are jurisdictional prerequisites which must be followed in order to vest the county board with the power to hear a landfill proposal." (Emphasis added.)  Kane County Defenders, 139 Ill. App. 3d at 593.  The case before us does not involve notice requirements under the Act, nor

does it involve a challenge to a county board's authority.

Accordingly, Kane County Defenders offers no support for the City's jurisdictional argument.

Moreover, it is clear that the Agency acted within its

jurisdiction when determining that local siting approval was not

required in order for the District to obtain its necessary permits.

An administrative agency’s jurisdiction refers to "the power to

hear and determine causes of the general class of cases to which

the particular case belongs."  Newkirk v. Bigard, 109 Ill. 2d 28, 36 (1985).  Whether a statutory provision is considered

jurisdictional depends on whether the agency’s particular expertise

is a necessary part of the statute’s interpretation and

application.  County of Knox ex rel. Masterson v. Highlands, L.L.C., 188 Ill. 2d 546, 552 (1999). 

The express language of section 39(c) instructs the Agency

that it may not issue a permit for a new pollution control facility

absent proof of local siting approval.  Thus, section 39(c)

requires the Agency to decide, before issuing a permit, whether

local siting approval is required and, if it is, to make sure that the applicant has submitted proof thereof.  Section 39(c) thereby

bestows upon the Agency the power to determine causes of the

general class of cases to which this case belongs.  Further, we

believe the Agency's expertise is a necessary part of determining

whether a facility constitutes a "new pollution control facility." 

There is no allegation in this case that the Agency failed to make

the necessary determinations under section 39(c).  Rather, the City

simply disagrees with the Agency's decision that local siting

approval is not required.  The City has not demonstrated that the

Agency exceeded the scope of its authority.  Therefore, we affirm

the order dismissing counts I and II of the amended complaint and

granting judgment on the pleadings as to those counts.  We also

deny the District's motion to cite additional authority on the

issue of whether the District's project is a new pollution control

facility, as that issue is not before us.  

			No. 2--03--0200

The District also appeals the trial court's order temporarily

restraining it from beginning construction of its project and

denying its request to enjoin the City from interfering with its

construction.  The City has moved to dismiss the District's appeal

on the ground that it is rendered moot by the scheduled expiration

of the District's air permit on March 11, 2003.  The District has

responded by moving to supplement the record with an order entered

by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board) staying the

expiration of its air permit.

We conclude that the scheduled expiration of the District's

air permit does not render the District's appeal moot. 

Consequently, we deny both the City's motion to dismiss the

District's appeal and the District's motions to supplement the

record on appeal with the Board's order.

The City also moves to dismiss the District's appeal on the

ground that the temporary restraining order has expired and a

preliminary injunction has been entered in its stead.  We decline

to dismiss the District's appeal on this basis.  The District

timely appealed the temporary restraining order and moved to

consolidate its two appeals.  The reviewing court is to decide a

petition filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 307(d) within five

days of the expiration of the time for filing any responding

memorandum, unless the court deems it appropriate to modify the

schedule.  188 Ill. 2d R. 307(d)(4), (d)(5).  The consolidation of

the District's two appeals required us to delay the decision on the

Rule 307 petition.  In our view, it would be unfair to penalize the

District by dismissing its Rule 307 petition because the

circumstances required a modified schedule for deciding the appeal. 

 	Generally, the scope of our review in an appeal brought pursuant to Rule 307 is limited to determining whether there was a

sufficient showing made to the trial court to sustain its order.  Crain v. Lucent Technologies Inc., 317 Ill. App. 3d 486, 491 (2000).  Here, the trial court based its decision granting the

City's motion for temporary restraining order and denying that of the District on its earlier determination that, under section 39(c)

of the Act, the District was required to comply with the City's

zoning ordinances.  The evidence was uncontroverted that the

District had not secured the necessary zoning approvals at the time

it sought to begin construction.

In order to be entitled to a temporary restraining order, a

party must show that it has a protectible right, that it will

suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted, that

its remedy at law is inadequate, and that there is a likelihood of

success on the merits.  Houseknecht v. Zagel, 112 Ill. App. 3d 284, 291-92 (1983).  A municipality, however, need not show irreparable

injury to obtain a temporary or preliminary injunction against the

violation of its ordinances.  Village of Lake Bluff v. Jacobson, 118 Ill. App. 3d 102, 110 (1983).

In light of our determination that the City may require the

District's compliance with its zoning regulations, there was

sufficient evidence before the trial court to sustain its orders

pertaining to the parties' respective motions for a temporary

restraining order.  Accordingly, we affirm the order granting the

City's motion for temporary restraining order and denying the

District's motion for temporary restraining order.

No. 2--02--0635, Certified questions answered; affirmed.

No. 2--03--0200, Affirmed.

McLAREN and KAPALA, JJ., concur.