IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

FILED
LEE COUNTY ILLINOIS
Lee Co. Circuit Court
15th Judicial Circuit
)
Date: 9/15/2023 9:52 AM
SOUTHWEST 2849 LLC, )
Amy Johnson
Plaintiff, )
AHB
)
vs ) Case No. 2023 MR
)
COUNTY OF LEE, )
2023MR00026
A BODY POLITIC; )
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, by its attorney Thomas A. Whitcombe, of Law Office of Paul T. Whitcombe,

Chtd., for its Complaint against Defendants, respectfully state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this Compliant pursuant to 55 ILCS 5/5-12012.1 to review two decisions
of the County Board of Lee County (“County Board”)—to remove a Special Use Permit
on certain property located in Lee County within an I-3 Heavy Industrial District
(“Revocation”) and to rezone said property from I-3 Heavy Industrial to C-3 General
Business District (“Map Amendment”)—which significantly diminished the property
value in violation of Plaintiff’s procedural and substantive due process rights and
investment-backed expectations
2. A copy of the Special Use Revocation, Resolution No. 2023 07 004, and Map Amendment,
Resolution No. 2023 07 005, (Collectively “Resolutions”) which were approved by the
County Board on July 20, 2023, are attached hereto marked Exhibit A and Exhibit B,
respectively.
3. The decisions themselves violated and continue to violate the procedural and substantive
due process rights of the Plaintiff and constitute an arbitrary and capricious determinations,
and the passage of the Resolutions was an abuse of discretion in direct contravention of the
“LaSalle Factors” as set forth in LaSalle National Bank of Chicago v. County of Cook, 12
Ill.2d 40. The approval of the Revocation and Map Amendment by the Lee County Zoning
Board of Appeals and the passage of the Resolutions by the County Board was without

1
 appropriate consideration of the LaSalle Factors and against the manifest weight of the
evidence.
4. Plaintiff seek a reversal of the Revocation and Map Amendment on the property which is
the subject of the Revocation and Map Amendment (the “Subject Property”) on the grounds
that the Revocation and Map Amendment effectively prevent the Petitioner from using and
enjoying its property in keeping with its investment-backed expectations, essentially taking
Plaintiff’s property without just compensation, and the Plaintiff requests a declaration that
the Revocation and Map Amendment are unconstitutional and arbitrarily and capriciously
granted.
5. Plaintiff request injunctive relief and for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-
701.

PARTIES

6. The Plaintiff, Southwest 2849 LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, is the sole
owner of the Subject Property.
7. The Defendant, County of Lee, is a political subdivision of the State of Illinois, and
operates under the authority granted to it by the Illinois Counties Code, 55 ILCs 5/1-1001,
et seq. County of Lee, through the Lee County Zoning Office, was also the petitioner to
the Lee County Zoning Board for both the Revocation and the Map Amendment.

SUBJECT PROPERTY

8. The legal description of the Subject Property is as follows: A part of the real property in
the Northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23,
Township 38 North, Range 1, East of the Third Principal Meridian, described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the Northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter; thence Westerly on the North line of Section 23, 313 feet; thence Southerly 339
feet; thence Easterly 313 feet; thence Northerly 339 feet to the place of beginning, except
the Southerly 85 feet thereof, all in Lee County, Illinois. The Subject Property contains
approximately 1.82 acres and is 4.5 miles north of the Village of Compton, Illinois.
9. The Subject Property was located in an I-3 Heavy Industrial District, but the zoning was
changed by Resolution No. 2023 07 005 to a C-3 General Business District.

2
10. The Subject Property is at the intersection of US Route 30 and US Route 251 and is
surrounded by vacant businesses, farmland, and a property owned by the Illinois
Department of Transportation.
11. The Lee County Zoning Office petitioned for the Revocation because the “petitioner
desires that the Special Use Permit be revoked pursuant to §10-2A-3 and $10-2D-3 of the
Lee County code” and the “use of said property has been discontinued for a continuous
period of three (3) years.”
12. The Lee County Zoning Office petitioned for the Map Amendment on the Subject Property
because the “petitioner desires the property to be rezoned to: C-3 General Business
District.”

METHOD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE

13. Pursuant to 55 ILCS 5/5-12012.1, any decision by the County Board of any County in
regard to any petition or application for a special use, variance, rezoning or other
amendment to a zoning ordinance shall be subject to de novo judicial review as a legislative
decision, and the principals of substantive and procedural due process apply to all stages
of the decision-making and review of all zoning decisions.
14. §10-2A-3 of the Lee County Zoning Ordinance enumerates the zoning administrator’s
authority and duties relating to special uses.
15. §10-2D-3 of the Lee County Zoning Ordinance sets a procedure with which the board of
appeals can institute proceedings on its own motion to consider the reclassification.
16. §10-2D-4 of the Lee County Zoning Ordinance lists due process standards that the board
of appeals must consider when evaluating a map amendment, essentially mirroring the
LaSalle Factors.

BACKGROUND

17. On or about June 6, 2023, the Defendant, by the Lee County Zoning Office, submitted two
petitions, one for Map Amendment 23-P-1612 and one for Revocation of Special Use 23-
P-1613 (collectively “Petitions”), which are attached hereto marked Exhibit C and Exhibit
D, respectively.

3
18. On July 6, 2023, the Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals conducted a public hearing on
the Petitions.
19. At the July 6 Zoning Board meeting, Plaintiff presented evidence in opposition to the
Petitions.
20. The Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals approved the Petitions, going through the factors
of §10-2D-4 for the Map Amendment, but not going through any additional substantive
discussion, beyond a brief mention of the time period since the Property was last open to
the public, for the Revocation.
21. Thereafter, the issue of approval of the Petitions were presented to the Lee County Board
on July 20, 2023. The County Board voted to approve the Petitions unanimously.
22. After the vote was taken, the County Board adopted Resolution No. 2023 07 004 and
Resolution No. 2023 07 005.

COUNT I: JUDICIAL REVIEW

(Revocation)
1-22. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 22 above as Paragraphs 1 through
22 of Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint as if fully set forth in this Count I.
23. The decision of the County Board on July 20, 2023, to adopt Resolution No. 2023 07 004
revoking the Special Use Permit, is reviewable de novo by this Court pursuant to the
provisions of 55 ILCS 5/5-12012.1.
24. Plaintiff seeks review of said Resolution granting the Revocation in its entirety for the
following reasons:
a. The testimony at the Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing failed to demonstrate that
the proposed Revocation met any of the Lasalle Factors which are also enumerated
in Section §10-2D-4(a-f) of the Lee County Zoning Ordinance.
b. The County Board failed to consider the Lasalle Factors prior to granting the
Revocation.
c. The evidence presented to the Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals failed to
establish that any of the Lasalle Factors have been met.
d. Plaintiff invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, partially during the COVID
pandemic, in the property with the investment-backed expectation that its zoning

4
 would stay as it was before the Revocation and Map Amendment. The Revocation
and Map Amendment significantly decrease the value of the property, likely to well
below Plaintiff’s current investment. In order to use the property for any purpose
tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars more will need to be invested.
e. The County Board’s decision to grant the Revocation was against the manifest
weight of the evidence and should be reversed for the following reasons:
1. The applicant failed to meet any of the Lasalle Factors.
2. The zoning of I-3 Heavy Industrial with a Special Use was compatible
with the surrounding zoning.
3. The Proposed Revocation on the Subject Property is detrimental to the
value of the property and goes against Plaintiff’s investment-backed
expectations.
4. No evidence was provided by petitioner, Defendant herein, regarding
the promotion of health, safety, and welfare, nor does any exist.
5. No evidence was provided by petitioner, Defendant herein, regarding
the gain to the public, nor does any exist. Plaintiff herein testified
extensively to the hardship the Revocation would cause.
6. The property is perfectly suitable for its prior zoned use.
7. While the property was not open for business, Plaintiff has spent the
last few years spending significant sums of money and working on
getting the property up to code for the purpose of reopening.
8. I-3 zoning with a special use was not inconsistent with Lee County’s
comprehensive plan.
9. There is no public need in the neighborhood for the Revocation.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court enter an Order declaring
the proceedings before the County Board to be inadequate and that the findings of the County
Board in allowance of the Revocation was arbitrary, capricious, and that the determination to grant
the special use was against the manifest state of the evidence, and for such other and further relief
as the Court deems equitable and just.

5
 COUNT II: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(Revocation)
1-24. The Plaintiff repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 24 above as Paragraphs 1 through
24 of Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint as if fully set forth in this Count II.
25. This Count II is brought pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-701 for a declaratory judgment based
upon the fact that an actual controversy exists between the parties hereto, and the Court
should declare the rights between the parties.
26. Adoption of Resolution 2023 07 004 was arbitrary and capricious and does not comply
with the LaSalle factors in the following particulars:
a. Resolution 2023 07 004 is inconsistent with the existing use and character of
surrounding and abutting property.
b. Resolution 2023 07 004 interferes with Plaintiff’s right to use and enjoy its property
for uses previously permitted.
c. Resolution 2023 07 004 harms the public health, safety, morals, comfort, and
general welfare.
d. Resolution 2023 07 004 deprives the Plaintiff of the highest and best use for its
property.
e. Resolution 2023 07 004 destroys the value of the Plaintiff’s property.
f. Resolution 2023 07 004 provides relatively little gain to the public as compared to
the hardship imposed upon the Plaintiff.
27. Resolution 2023 07 004 is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unnecessary, and is in
violation of the purpose of the Lee County Zoning Ordinance as set forth in Chapter 1 of
the Lee County Code et seq. of said Ordinances.
28. As set forth in this Complaint, Resolution 2023 07 004 denies the Plaintiff due process of
law and equal protection of the law, and as such, it violated Section 2 and 15 of Article 1
of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United State, in that, by reason of the facts and circumstances set forth
herein, the Plaintiff has been deprived of the use of its property for an improper purpose
through the arbitrary and capricious actions of the County.

6
 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order declaring
the proceedings before the County Board to be inadequate and in violation of the law and that the
findings of the County Board in allowance of the Revocation was arbitrary, capricious, and illegal,
and that the determination to grant the Revocation was against the manifest state of the evidence,
that the Court declare the Ordinance null and void, and for such other and further relief as the
Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT III: PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Revocation)
1-28. Plaintiff reallege and incorporates Paragraph 1 through 28 above as Paragraphs 1 through
28 of Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint as if fully set forth in this Count III.
29. Plaintiff has a legitimate interest and a clearly ascertainable property right to protect its real
estate from causes and intrusions that unreasonably interfere in the enjoyment of its
properties or that lead to a loss in value of its properties. The County, through its restriction
of use of the Subject Property, pursuant to Resolution 2023 07 004, will unreasonably
interfere with the Plaintiff’s interest in the use and enjoyment of its property which will
cause significant harm to the Plaintiff.
30. That the threat of future serious and irreparable harm from restrictions on the use of the
Subject Property as allowed by Resolution 2023 07 004 cannot be adequately remedied
solely through an action at law.
31. Therefore, the Court’s entry of a temporary and permanent injunction enjoining the
Defendant from restricting the Subject Property pursuant to the Revocation is clearly
necessary in order to prevent future injuries and unreasonable interference with the
Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of its property and for the protection of its investment-backed
expectations.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court temporarily and
permanently enjoin the defendant from enforcing the terms of the Revocation as set forth in
Resolution 2023 07 004, and that an injunction issue without the Plaintiff posting a bond and for
such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

7
 COUNT IV: JUDICIAL REVIEW
(Map Amendment)
1-31. The Plaintiff repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 22 above as Paragraphs 1 through
22 of Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint as if fully set forth in this Count I.
32. The decision of the County Board on July 20, 2023, to adopt Resolution No. 2023 07 005
amending the zoning map of Lee County to Change Plaintiff’s property to C-3 General
Business from I-3 Heavy Industrial, is reviewable de novo by this Court pursuant to the
provisions of 55 ILCS 5/5-12012.1.
33. Plaintiff seeks review of said Resolution granting the Map Amendment in its entirety for
the following reasons:
a. The testimony at the Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing failed to demonstrate that
the proposed Map Amendment met any of the Lasalle Factors which are also
enumerated in Section §10-2D-4 of the Lee County Zoning Ordinance.
b. The County Board failed to adequately consider the Standards as set forth in Section
§10-2D-4 of the Lee County Zoning Ordinance, essentially the Lasalle Factors,
prior to granting the Map Amendment.
c. The evidence presented to the Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals failed to
establish that any of the Standards set forth in Section §10-2D-4 of the Lee County
Zoning Ordinance have been met.
d. Plaintiff invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, partially during the COVID
pandemic, in the property with the investment-backed expectation that its zoning
would stay as it was before the Revocation and Map Amendment. The Revocation
and Map Amendment significantly decrease the value of the property, likely to well
below Plaintiff’s current investment. In order to use the property for any purpose
tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars more will need to be invested.
e. The County Board’s decision to grant the Map Amendment was against the
manifest weight of the evidence and should be denied for the following reasons:
1. The applicant failed to meet any of the standards required by Section
§10-2D-4 of the Lee County Zoning Ordinance, or the Lasalle Factors.
2. The zoning of I-3 Heavy Industrial was compatible with the
surrounding zoning.

8
 3. The Proposed Map Amendment on the Subject Property is detrimental
to the value of the property and goes against Plaintiff’s investment-
backed expectations.
4. No evidence was provided by petitioner, Defendant herein, regarding
the promotion of health, safety, and welfare.
5. No evidence was provided by petitioner, Defendant herein, regarding
the gain to the public. Plaintiff herein testified extensively to the
hardship the Map Amendment would cause.
6. The property is perfectly suitable for its prior zoned use.
7. While the property was not open for business, Plaintiff has spent the
last few years working on getting the property up to code for the purpose
of reopening.
8. I-3 zoning was not inconsistent with Lee County’s comprehensive plan.
9. There is no public need in the neighborhood for a change to C-3 zoning.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court enter an Order declaring
the proceedings before the County Board to be inadequate and that the findings of the County
Board in allowance of the Map Amendment was arbitrary, capricious, and that the determination
to grant the special use was against the manifest state of the evidence, and for such other and
further relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT V: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Map Amendment)
1-33. The Plaintiff repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 22 and 32-33 above as Paragraphs
1 through 33 of Count V of Plaintiff’s Complaint as if fully set forth in this Count V.
34. This Count V is brought pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-701 for a declaratory judgment based
upon the fact that an actual controversy exists between the parties hereto, and the Court
should declare the rights between the parties.

9
35. Adoption of Resolution 2023 07 005 was arbitrary and capricious and does not comply
with the LaSalle factors or §10-2D-4 of the Lee County Zoning Ordinance in the following
particulars:
a. Resolution 2023 07 005 is inconsistent with the existing use and character of
surrounding and abutting property.
b. Resolution 2023 07 005 interferes with Plaintiff’s right to use and enjoy its property
for uses previously permitted.
c. Resolution 2023 07 005 harms the public health, safety, morals, comfort, and
general welfare.
d. Resolution 2023 07 005 deprives the Plaintiff of the highest and best use for its
property.
e. Resolution 2023 07 005 destroys the value of the Plaintiff’s property.
f. Resolution 2023 07 005 provides relative little gain to the public as compared to
the hardship imposed upon the Plaintiff and surrounding property owners.
36. Resolution 2023 07 005 is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unnecessary, and is in
violation of the purpose of the Lee County Zoning Ordinance as set forth in Chapter 1 of
the Lee County Code et seq. of said Ordinances.
37. As set forth in this Complaint, the Ordinance denies the Plaintiff due process of law and
equal protection of the law, and as such, it violated Section 2 and 15 of Article 1 of the
Constitution of the State of Illinois, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United State, in that, by reason of the facts and circumstances set forth
herein, the Plaintiff have been deprived of the use of its property for an improper purpose
through the arbitrary and capricious actions of the County.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court enter an Order declaring
the proceedings before the County Board to be inadequate and in violation of the law and that the
findings of the County Board in allowance of the special use was arbitrary, capricious, and illegal,
and that the determination to grant the special use was against the manifest state of the evidence,
that the Court declare the Map Amendment null and void, and for such other and further relief as
the Court deems equitable and just.

10
 COUNT VI: PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Map Amendment)
1-37. The Plaintiff repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 22 and 32-37 above as Paragraphs
1 through 37 of Count VI of Plaintiff’s Complaint as if fully set forth in this Count VI.
38. Plaintiff has a legitimate interest and a clearly ascertainable property right to protect its real
estate from causes and intrusions that unreasonably interfere in the enjoyment of its
properties or that lead to a loss in value of its properties. The County, through its restriction
of use of the Subject Property, pursuant to Resolution 2023 07 005, will unreasonably
interfere with the Plaintiff’s interest in the use and enjoyment of its property which will
cause significant harm to the Plaintiff.
39. That the threat of future serious and irreparable harm from the use of the Subject Property
as allowed by Resolution 2023 07 005 cannot be adequately remedied solely through an
action at law.
40. Therefore, the Court’s entry of a temporary and permanent injunction enjoining the
Defendants from restricting the Subject Property pursuant to the Map Amendment is
clearly necessary in order to prevent future injuries and unreasonable interference with the
Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of its property and for the protection of its investment-backed
expectations.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court temporarily and
permanently enjoin the defendants from enforcing the terms of the special use as set forth in
Resolution 2023 07 005, and that an injunction issue without the Plaintiff posting a bond and for
such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

SOUTHWEST 2849 LLC, Plaintiff,

THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL WHITCOMBE, CHTD.

By: ___________________________________
Attorney THOMAS WHITCOMBE
One of its Attorneys

11
DRAFTED BY:

Thomas A. Whitcombe, #6333539

Law Office of Paul T. Whitcombe, Chtd.
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
223 W. 1st Street 302 E. 5th Street
Dixon, IL 61021 Sterling, IL 61081
(815) 288-7209
office@paulwhitcombe.com

12