Court Opinion

ID: 9722430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:30:28.854738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:35.254028
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE RECHENMACHER, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The plaintiffs here are challenging a zoning regulation which has been upheld by the trial court. In my opinion, the plaintiffs have failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the denial bore no substantial relation to health, safety and/or welfare. The trial court felt that the planning for future residential development was a reasonable basis for drawing the line on zoning for additional Restricted Landing Areas. In this the trial court was apparently influenced by the plaintiffs’ exhibit showing that the majority of the 22 already-existing RLAs in Winnebago County were located to the north and northeast of Rockford, as was the petitioner’s land. Apparently the decision of the county authorities to turn down the petition for a new RLA in the same area was reasonably taken by the trial court as an indication that the county authorities had drawn the line as to expansion of RLAs in that area which is developing rapidly as a residential area. This appears to be a rational conclusion and to be reasonably related to the health, safety, comfort and convenience of the public. The trial court’s decision, in my opinion, should be affirmed.