JLR Investments, Inc. v. Village of Barrington Hills
355 Ill. App. 3d 661, 293 Ill. Dec. 695, 828 N.E.2d 1193 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A home rule municipality's ordinance establishing an exclusive and burdensome procedure for property disconnection is invalid because the establishment of municipal boundaries is a matter of statewide concern that exceeds home rule powers. Such an ordinance is also invalid if it impermissibly interferes with the state's judicial system by conflicting with statutory procedures and jurisdiction.
Facts:
- JLR Investments, Inc., Housing Resources Company, L.L.C., and Gateway Company (Petitioners) owned 368.3 acres of property located within the corporate limits of the Village of Barrington Hills (Village).
- The property, which contained three homes and six residents, was zoned "R-1" for single-family residences on lots of at least five acres, consistent with over 90% of the Village.
- The Village had a municipal ordinance (section 6-1-7) that purported to be the "sole and exclusive process" for disconnection, requiring property owners to submit detailed petitions to Village boards, pay substantial fees, and participate in local public hearings.
- Previously, Petitioners had presented a development plan to the Village to build up to 350 homes on smaller lots (1.6 acres), which the Village denied as it conflicted with its comprehensive plan to limit development.
- Petitioners sought to disconnect the property from the Village and have it become part of unincorporated McHenry County.
- The Village ordinance stated that it superseded the disconnection provisions of the Illinois Municipal Code.
- The property in question is located on the border of the municipality.
Procedural Posture:
- JLR Investments, Inc. filed a petition in the Circuit Court of McHenry County to disconnect property from the Village of Barrington Hills, pursuant to the Illinois Municipal Code.
- The petition was later amended to add Housing Resources Company, L.L.C. and Gateway Company, L.L.C. as petitioners.
- The Village of Barrington Hills (defendant) filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the petitioners failed to follow the exclusive disconnection procedure required by the Village's municipal code.
- The trial court denied the Village's motion to dismiss.
- Following a bench trial, the court entered an order granting the petition for disconnection, finding the petitioners had satisfied the statutory requirements.
- The Village filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied.
- The Village of Barrington Hills (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District.
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 a home rule municipality's ordinance, which establishes a sole and exclusive administrative process for property disconnection, unlawfully supersede a state statute that provides for a direct judicial petition for disconnection?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bowman
Yes, a home rule municipality's ordinance that establishes a sole and exclusive administrative process for property disconnection unlawfully supersedes the state statute. The court held that disconnection is a matter of statewide concern that exceeds a municipality's home rule powers. Reaffirming its precedent in La Salle National Trust, the court reasoned that municipal corporations are creatures of the state, and the legislature retains the authority to control their boundaries. The state's disconnection statute provides a comprehensive judicial procedure, giving the municipality only a limited role as a defendant, which indicates the state's primary interest. Furthermore, the Village's ordinance is invalid because it impermissibly interferes with the state judicial system by making disconnection more difficult, time-consuming, and expensive than the state statute provides. It also improperly attempts to dictate venue for judicial review, contradicting the state statute's provision that petitions be filed in the county where the land is situated.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the limits on municipal home rule authority, clarifying that certain governmental functions, like the alteration of municipal boundaries, remain matters of statewide concern even without explicit legislative preemption. The case establishes that a home rule unit cannot create procedural hurdles or conflicting administrative schemes that undermine a right and a process created by a state statute. This precedent protects property owners' statutory right to seek disconnection through the courts, preventing municipalities from using local ordinances to effectively block or unduly burden this process.
