Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2006

Home

Page 8 --April 10, 2006 with the street proposed for use in the subdivision plan. Specifically, the street w~s close to a school, and many speakers were concerned that the increased traffic that the proposed subdivision would create would impact the children's safety. In addition, a traffic study of the road proposed to be connected to the subdivision revealed that the street was already in need of improvements to traffic control signage, street markings, and parking regulation. If the applica- tion had been approved, it would have created a further burden on a roadway with which there already were apparent safety concerns. The court found the commission's decision was therefore reasonable, and it dismissed the appeal. Annexatign --Landowner ~ants to disconnect land from municipality Had signed 20-year annexation, agreement with village Citation: Gaylor v. The ~llage of Ringwood, Appellate Court of Illinois, 2nd Dist., No. 2-05-0398 (2006) ILLINOIS (01/31/06) -- In 1997, Gaylor entered into an annexation a~eement that set forth the terms under which Gaylor's property would be annexed to the Village of R/ngwood. At the same time, the village rezoned the property from a~m'icultural to light industry. In addition to the rezoning, Gaylor was granted the right to general business district uses, certain conditional uses, and front- age variations for various planned subdivision lots. -- In 2000, the final plat of subdivision was recorded, and the property became '~ommonly known as Gaylor Business Park. The annexation a~eement stated that it was binding for 20 years. However, in 2003, Gaylor decided to disconnect the property from the village. Gaylor sued, and the court ruled in his favor by £mding that state law favored the approval of disconnection petitions. The village appealed, a~guing that Gaylor gave away his right to take his property out of the annexing municipality. DECISION: Reversed. Gaylor was not entitled to disconnection. .The annexation agreement itself cut off Gaylor's fight to disconnection. It was fundamentally accepted that parties could contract away rights, even con- stitutional and statutory ones. The e~stence of an annexation agreement implied that Gaylor contracted away his rights to sever the subject property from the annexing municipality for the life of the agreement. Ultimately, the ageement stopped Gaylor from being able to petition for disconnection, whether state law favored it or not. see also: Subway Restaurants of Bloomington-Normal Inc. v. Topinka, 751 N.E. 2d 203 (2001). see also: Indian Valley Golf Club Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 527 N.£.2d .: 1273 (I988). © 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproctuction is prohibited. For more information please call (6~7} 542"004~. 60