People Ex Rel. Village of Long Grove v. Village of Buffalo Grove
111 Ill. Dec. 965, 160 Ill. App. 3d 455, 513 N.E.2d 408 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An annexation petition is invalid and confers no priority if it includes territory that is already incorporated within another municipality or if the territory sought for annexation is not contiguous, meaning it does not adjoin the annexing municipality in a reasonably substantial physical sense.
Facts:
- In 1968, the Village of Long Grove purchased a five-acre tract of land in unincorporated Lake County for a sewer plant, which it dismantled in 1971, leaving the property vacant.
- On March 13, 1973, Long Grove passed an ordinance to annex the five-acre sewer plant site but the ordinance was never recorded and its original copy was lost.
- On October 1, 1985, owners of a 90-acre tract filed a petition to annex their land to the Village of Buffalo Grove, including Long Grove's five-acre tract in the petition to create a contiguous 95-acre parcel.
- The 95-acre tract was almost entirely surrounded by Long Grove, sharing only an approximately 600-foot, winding boundary with Buffalo Grove along a creek line.
- The annexation petition filed with Buffalo Grove included descriptions of the rights-of-way for Route 53 and Schaefer Road, which zoning maps from both villages depicted as being within Long Grove's corporate boundaries.
- The petition also noted that part of the property was held in land trusts but did not disclose the names of the beneficial owners.
- On October 29, 1985, Long Grove passed a new ordinance to re-annex the five-acre sewer plant site, which it recorded the following day.
- On November 4, 1985, Buffalo Grove adopted its own ordinance annexing the entire 95-acre tract based on the October 1 petition.
Procedural Posture:
- The Village of Long Grove initiated a quo warranto proceeding in the circuit court against the Village of Buffalo Grove, challenging the validity of Buffalo Grove's annexation.
- Following a bench trial, the circuit court found that Long Grove's 1973 annexation was invalid but its 1985 re-annexation was valid.
- The circuit court held that the petition for annexation filed with Buffalo Grove on October 1, 1985, was valid and preempted Long Grove's subsequent annexation ordinance.
- The circuit court entered a final judgment in favor of the defendant, the Village of Buffalo Grove.
- The plaintiff, the Village of Long Grove, appealed the judgment to the appellate court.
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 an annexation petition that includes land already within another municipality's corporate limits and that is not substantially contiguous to the annexing village confer jurisdictional priority over a subsequent valid annexation ordinance for a portion of the same territory?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Nash
No. An annexation petition is invalid if it fails to comply with statutory requirements, and therefore it cannot establish priority. The Buffalo Grove petition was invalid for two independent reasons. First, an annexation petition is jurisdictionally defective if it includes territory that is already incorporated. Buffalo Grove failed to meet its burden to prove that the roads included in its petition were unincorporated territory, as evidence suggested they were already within Long Grove's boundaries. Second, the contiguity requirement was not met. The purpose of contiguity is to ensure the natural and gradual extension of municipal boundaries, which requires a substantial physical connection. The 95-acre tract's connection to Buffalo Grove via an approximate 600-foot winding boundary was not a reasonably substantial physical connection and constituted an impermissible 'strip' annexation. Because the petition was invalid, it did not preempt Long Grove's subsequent, valid annexation ordinance.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that annexation statutes must be strictly followed for a municipality's action to be valid. It clarifies that a petition for annexation is void ab initio if it contains jurisdictional defects, such as including already incorporated land, and thus cannot establish priority under the 'first-to-file' rule. The ruling also provides a practical application of the contiguity doctrine, demonstrating that a narrow or tenuous connection relative to the size of the annexed parcel fails to meet the legal standard, thereby discouraging 'strip annexations' designed to reach and acquire non-adjacent territory.
