No. 2--04--0045

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

JUSTICE BOWMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Petitioners, JLR Investments, Inc. (JLR), Housing Resources Company, L.L.C. (HousingResources), and Gateway Company, L.L.C. (Gateway), petitioned under section 7--3--6 of the IllinoisMunicipal Code (disconnection statute) (65 ILCS 5/7--3--6 (West 2002)) to disconnect propertyfrom the Village of Barrington Hills (Village) and connect the property to unincorporated McHenryCounty. The trial court granted their petition, and the Village appeals. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 2, 2001, JLR petitioned to disconnect 368.3 acres of land (the property) from theVillage, under the disconnection statute. The property is zoned as an "R-1" single-family residencedistrict, as is over 90% of the Village. R-1 zoning requires single-family homes on lots of a minimumof five acres. The property contains three homes and six residents, and it represents about 2% of theVillage's total area of 28 square miles.

The disconnection statute states, in relevant part:

"The owner or owners of record of any area of land consisting of one or more tracts,lying within the corporate limits of any municipality may have such territory disconnectedwhich (1) contains 20 or more acres; (2) is located on the border of the municipality; (3) ifdisconnected, will not result in the isolation of any part of the municipality from the remainderof the municipality[;] (4) if disconnected, the growth prospects and plan and zoningordinances, if any, of such municipality will not be unreasonably disrupted[;] (5) ifdisconnected, no substantial disruption will result to existing municipal service facilities, suchas, but not limited to, sewer systems, street lighting, water mains, garbage collection and fireprotection[;] (6) if disconnected the municipality will not be unduly harmed through loss oftax revenue in the future. The procedure for disconnection shall be as follows: The owneror owners of record of any such area of land shall file a petition in the circuit court of thecounty where the land is situated, alleging facts in support of the disconnection. Themunicipality from which disconnection is sought shall be made a defendant, and it, or anytaxpayer residing in that municipality, may appear and defend against the petition. If the courtfinds that the allegations of the petition are true and that the area of land is entitled todisconnection it shall order the specified land disconnected from the designated municipality. If the circuit court finds that the allegations contained in the petition are not true, the courtshall enter an order dismissing the petition." 65 ILCS 5/7--3--6 (West 2002).

The Village moved to dismiss the petition under section 2--619 of the Code of Civil Procedure(Code) (735 ILCS 5/2--619 (West 2000)), arguing that JLR had failed to submit a written petitionto the Village plan commission (Commission) and zoning board of appeals (Zoning Board), asrequired by the Village code. The trial court denied the Village's motion.

JLR and Housing Resources filed an amended petition on September 13, 2001, addingHousing Resources as a petitioner. Petitioners filed a second amended petition on February 21, 2002,adding Gateway as a petitioner. A trial was held from September 15, 2003, through September 19,2003. Prior to the trial, the Village stipulated that petitioners had established the first tworequirements of the disconnection statute. Thus, the evidence at trial was limited to requirementsthree through six. On October 22, 2003, the trial court entered a memorandum opinion and orderfinding that petitioners had established these requirements by a preponderance of the evidence. TheVillage moved to reconsider, and on December 17, 2003, the trial court denied the motion. TheVillage timely appealed. The Village argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion todismiss, ruling in favor of petitioners, and denying its motion to reconsider.
 

II. ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Dismiss

We first examine whether the trial court erred by denying the Village's motion to dismiss. TheVillage argues that the trial court should have dismissed the case because petitioners failed to complywith section 6--1--7 of the Village code (section 6--1--7) (Village of Barrington Hills Municipal Code