Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. Village of Barrington Hills
549 N.E.2d 578, 133 Ill. 2d 146, 139 Ill. Dec. 852 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute authorizing property disconnection from a municipality should be liberally construed in favor of disconnection, and the determination of whether disconnection 'unreasonably disrupts' a municipality's growth prospects, plan, or zoning ordinances must focus on the municipality as a whole and existing facts, not hypothetical future development of the disconnected parcel or market reactions without economic foundation.
Facts:
- Harris Trust & Savings Bank, Faith Lutheran Church of Meadowdale, Caryl C. Wilder, Jonathan T. Wilder, and Phillip E. Bash (plaintiffs) owned approximately 95 acres of land.
- The plaintiffs' property was situated on the western limit of the village of Barrington Hills, bordering Carpentersville.
- The parcel, resembling an inverted “L,” was located on the south side of Helm Road, approximately a quarter mile east of Route 25, with 1,800 feet of frontage and a maximum depth of 2,600 feet.
- The property was surrounded on the north, south, and west by Carpentersville.
- To the east of the parcel were three lots of five acres or more and the Helm Woods Forest Preserve, owned by the Kane County Forest Preserve District.
- The Dundee Township Park District also owned a park that was contiguous with the parcel’s southeast corner.
- The village of Barrington Hills covered nearly 27 square miles, with over 90% zoned R-1 (single-family residence district), which requires a minimum lot size of five acres.
- The plaintiffs' property was zoned R-1, used for farming, and included three houses, a church, and a parsonage.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a petition in the circuit court of Cook County to disconnect their property from the village of Barrington Hills, pursuant to section 7—3—6 of the Illinois Municipal Code.
- The village filed a special and limited appearance contesting venue and a motion to transfer venue to the circuit court of Kane County, as the property was located in Kane County.
- The motion to transfer venue was granted, transferring the case to the circuit court of Kane County.
- Following a bench trial, the circuit court of Kane County denied the plaintiffs’ petition, finding that disconnecting the property would unreasonably disrupt the growth prospects and plan and zoning ordinances of the village.
- Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, determining that the trial court’s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence (177 Ill. App. 3d 673).
- The village's petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court was allowed (107 Ill. 2d R. 315).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the disconnection of a property from a municipality unreasonably disrupt the municipality's growth prospects and plan and zoning ordinances, when the governing statute is to be liberally construed in favor of disconnection?
Opinions:
Majority - CHIEF JUSTICE MORAN
No, the disconnection of the subject property from the village of Barrington Hills will not unreasonably disrupt the village's growth prospects and plan and zoning ordinances, because the trial court's finding to the contrary was against the manifest weight of the evidence and based on improper considerations. The court affirmed the appellate court's reversal, holding that the disconnection statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 24, par. 7—3—6) should be construed liberally in favor of disconnection, a standard consistently applied by appellate courts and implicitly affirmed by legislative inaction on amendments. The court clarified that the "unreasonable disruption" test in factor four of the statute focuses on the municipality as a whole, not hypothetical future development of the disconnected site or market reactions without economic foundation. Specifically, the trial court erred in considering market reaction, as the village's expert testimony on this point lacked foundation and credibility. Furthermore, considerations such as the alteration of borders, the property no longer supporting municipal growth, or serving as a precedent for future disconnections are not proper factors in a disconnection analysis, which is distinct from a zoning case. Given that the property was virtually isolated from the village by a forest preserve and bordered Carpentersville, and the village itself was largely zoned for large-lot residential development, the disconnection would not unreasonably disrupt the village's growth prospects or planning.
Concurring - JUSTICE RYAN
Yes, Justice Ryan concurs with the majority's holding that the disconnection should be allowed. Justice Ryan writes to clarify that the "liberal construction" of the disconnection statute, as applied by the court, should pertain to interpreting the statutory terms and requirements, not to liberally construing the evidence presented in favor of disconnection. Petitioners still bear the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence, and the scales of evidence should remain evenly balanced. Misconstruing "liberal construction" to mean a relaxed evidentiary standard would improperly lessen the petitioners' burden in a disconnection proceeding. The legislative intent behind disconnection statutes is to provide a vehicle for detachment under certain conditions, not to inherently favor or disfavor detachments.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the interpretation and application of Illinois's municipal disconnection statute, particularly the "unreasonable disruption" factor. It reinforces a long-standing principle of liberal construction for such statutes but critically distinguishes between statutory interpretation and evidentiary standards. By rejecting speculative market impact and the "precedent" argument, the court narrows the scope of objections municipalities can raise, potentially making it easier for landowners meeting statutory criteria to disconnect. The decision also emphasizes focusing on the municipality's actual, existing growth and planning, rather than potential future development of the parcel if it remained connected.
