Zeitz, et al. V. Village of Glenview
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

The Grove (Camiros, Ltd. - unpublished article)

Concrete and asphalt seemingly dominate today's modern landscape. City parks and forest preserves serve as reminders of a time when nature had free reign. Yet even the parks are not entirely faithful to what was once the natural ecology, having been planned out and curbed by their designers. To imagine acres of land still ecologically intact from even 50 years ago seems impossible. Yet, in Glenview, Illinois, there are 85 protected acres, named "The Grove," which have remained untouched for 160 years. First settled in 1836, The Grove, a natural historic landmark, is as rich in flora and fauna as it is in history. And it is not without its share of conflict.

In 1836, the Kennicott family settled at The Grove. In 1842, the Kennicotts built "The Grove Nursery and Garden" - one of the largest nurseries in Illinois - and, in 1853, they built their home and a one-room schoolhouse. The head of the family, John A. Kennicott, was an avid devotee of all things agricultural and it was this enthusiasm that led him to become one of the most effective promoters of agricultural progress and education. He founded, and headed, numerous agricultural associations and organizations. One of these, the Illinois State Agricultural Society, eventually evolved into the Illinois Department of Agriculture. He was driven by the belief that farming could be elevated to that of a respected profession via research and education.

Robert Kennicott followed in his father's footsteps. By the early age of 17, he was already working with three of the nation's leading naturalists. He discovered several completely new species of animals living both in, and around, The Grove. A number of them were named in his honor as well as such natural landmarks as a mountain, glacier, river and town, among others.

Aside from the overwhelming amount of contributions to the worlds of ecology and agriculture from the Kennicotts, The Grove also found its way into literature. Authors Donald Culross Peattie and Louis Redfield Peattie both made The Grove the setting of their novels, "American Acres" and "A Prairie Grove" respectively. And the Redfield house, named for the author, was built in 1929 and remains there today.

With a history this rich and an ecological integrity even more valuable, members of the Glenview community joined together in 1973 to form the "Save The Grove Committee." Spurred by a proposed development of 274 apartments on approximately 30 acres of The Grove, the committee was formed to protect the woods as well as the Kennicott house. The citizens of Glenview approved a referendum - 89% in favor - for a bond that raised $835,000 to buy part of The Grove.

From there, community efforts snowballed. 1973 saw The Grove placed on the National Register of Historic Places. In 1975, The Grove and the Kennicott house became National Historic Landmarks. In 1976, the Save The Grove Committee was dissolved and became the Grove Heritage Association - a non-profit citizen group that advises the Glenview Park District on management and restoration. Finally, in 1978, Glenview annexed The Grove's remaining property.

Still The Grove faces many challenges, from maintaining its ecological integrity to development pressures. The Village of Glenview is committed to preserving this land and, during the course of this battle, has fought successfully for its protection.

The Village of Glenview has taken a number of steps on their own to preserve this land. The village successfully negotiated conservation easements with property owners surrounding The Grove. Another conservation easement was placed across Milwaukee Avenue so that the tollway, which runs along one side of The Grove, remained hidden from view.

In essence, Glenview worked to create a system that regulated private development, allowing it to occur in this sensitive area without harming the natural resources that make it such a unique place. There are basic zoning controls: P1 and RE. RE zoning very specifically established the density that would secure an existence harmonious with the ecology. P1 zoning established an Environmentally Significant Area, with some of the land designated primary area which imposes even stricter regulations.

But even this initial system of zoning had to be fine-tuned. 44 acres were rezoned from R1 to RE because they were found to be inextricably linked to The Grove and part of the natural system, especially in regard to the hydrologic cycles. There was a need to keep that area together with the basic natural area in order to ensure that the species that compose The Grove remain healthy and functioning. This downzoning allowed the continued utilization of private land in an appropriate and suitable residential classification. This was clearly done for the benefit of the public and with the public's approval.

In the 1800s, The Grove survived the booming agricultural period since the land was too wet for farming. This protected the trees and other natural flora. By 1964, urbanization began to encroach on this rural farm community and the village began to see suburban development. That year a pattern of very low density single family residences established itself in The Grove but proved no threat to the environmental and economic integrity.

During this time span of 1964 through 1981, conflicting forces were at work. A growing awareness and appreciation of natural resources found itself in conflict with urban development. A pattern was evident. Urban development occurred on previously cultivated land by the reasoning that land good for agriculture was good for development. The Grove's integrity remained because these developments were not intense enough to destroy the ecological harmony. Glenview's comprehensive plan identifies this area's importance and establishes that 2 acre residential zoning is appropriate. The Grove also has educational value. Over 75,000 children per year receive a hands-on environmental education on this site.

In all, 7 different approaches were used to establish and achieve the public policies protecting The Grove, while still allowing private use of the surrounding land. They were:

1. The basic zoning of P1 and RE.
2. Establishment of The Grove as an Environmentally Sensitive Area.
3. The education and designation movements of the Village and its residents.
4. Accommodation of lands that were unincorporated on the edge of The Grove and negotiations with developers of office buildings and condos that would have occurred but now do so with negotiated conservation easements, preserving the ecology.
5. Use of conservation area techniques.
6. Public ownership of land - outright purchases and donations.
7. Engineering solutions that would preserve the land.

Camiros, Ltd. stepped into the picture when a conflict occurred over the development of the Zeitz property. The reasoning behind it was that the area had been rezoned from an R1 to an RE area. In 1990, the zoning of the area changed from RI to RE and Mr. Zeitz owned 10 acres of vacant land in an area which was now deemed an Environmentally Sensitive Area. The argument centered around Mr. Zeitz' desire to build a 10 lot development on the site, with 1 home per acre. The village, with Jacques Gourguechon, Principal Consultant of Camiros, as an expert witness, argued that the area must remain a 5 lot development site to preserve The Grove's integrity. 5 lots would protect the density of development in the area. And, contrary to Mr. Zeitz' opinion, a 5 lot development would be as marketable as a 10 lot one. In fact, this smaller density makes the development more attractive - people like to live in an area that is regulated and protected. 10 lots would change the character: doubling the status quo density, establishing a precedent that would jeopardize the area's integrity, creating a totally different urban environment. There would be detrimental impact, namely the erosion of The Grove and a disruption of natural systems. 25 years of a careful process would be destroyed.

In a court case like this one, six factors determine whether zoning restrictions, like the ones imposed on Mr. Zeitz, are legal.

1. Existing uses and zoning of nearby property
2. Extent to which property values are diminished by particular zoning restrictions
3. Extent to which the destruction of the plaintiff's property values promote the health, safety and welfare of the public
4. The relative gain to the public compared to the hardship imposed on the owner
5. Suitability of the subject property for the zoned purpose
6. Length of time the property has been vacant as zoned, considered in the context of land development in the community

Mr. Gourguechon argued each of these six criteria in court. The Zeitz property was densely forested and vacant even after it was zoned RE. The principal use was open space. The property is also zoned ESA, some of it even primary area in which the restrictions are stricter. The character was drawn from residences on Portage Run Road - 8 or 9 homes in the area, each on 2 or more acres, compliant with RE zoning regulations. R1 and RE zoning classifications have the same property values. There was no significant drop in property values as a result of rezoning - RE zoning did not deprive plaintiffs of an economically viable use. Also in The Grove's favor was its status as Global One from the Nature Conservatory - the highest priority for protection and preservation. A 10 lot development on this property would have both direct and indirect adverse impacts on the wetlands both in, and around, the Zeitz property: a direct loss of wetland acreage and the natural hydrology would have been severely altered. The 10 lots would fragment the wetlands, reduce the open space, create adverse edge-effects, increase the density and further reduce existing habitats for plants and animals. Even though no destruction of Mr. Zeitz' property values would occur at 5 lots or 10 lots, a 10 lot development would still be detrimental to the land the public fought so hard to preserve.

What was found was that the property is suitable for development under an RE classification - no ordinances were improperly applied or approved and there is no evidence that the vacancy was due to the RE classification. The property is not large enough for 10 lots unless the road is included and the Village has never allowed inclusion of a road in order to meet the size requirements. Other homeowners in the area have willingly cooperated with the minimum acre restrictions.

The court found in favor of Glenview.