Are Special-Use Permits Enforceable After Annexation Agreement Expiration ?
In Bank of Waukegan v. Village of Vernon Hills, 254 Ill. App. 3d 24, 626 N.E.2d 245, 193 Ill. Dec. 212 (1993), a parcel was annexed to a village pursuant to an annexation agreement.
Upon execution of the annexation agreement, the village passed an ordinance annexing the property and another ordinance zoning the land B-1 with a special use for a planned unit development (PUD) for multiple-family residential use.
After the expiration of the annexation agreement (i.e., 10 years, pursuant to the annexation statute in effect at the time), the village adopted a comprehensive revision of its zoning code, under which the B-1 zoning classification no longer permitted residential uses, even as special uses.
Several developers contract ed to purchase the subject property and applied for site plan approval for the construction of two apartment buildings thereon.
The village denied the application. the developers sued the village, and, after a trial, the trial court denied the developers relief.
On appeal, this court first addressed whether the special-use permits (bestowed by the zoning ordinance passed upon execution of the annexation agreement) was enforceable after the expiration of the annexation agreement.
This court held that the ordinance (and a subsequent ordinance amending the original ordinance) expired with the annexation agreement and that, when the developers sought to develop the property after the expiration of the annexation agreement, "there existed no special use for a PUD on the property." Bank of Waukegan, 254 Ill. App. 3d at 27.
The ordinance provided that the village was approving the application to zone certain property, " 'upon the annexation thereof,'" as B-1 with a special use for a PUD. Bank of Waukegan, 254 Ill. App. 3d at 28.
This court concluded that the B-1 zoning classification and the special-use permits " were only granted because of promises made in the annexation agreement" and were "provisions" of the annexation agreement. Bank of Waukegan, 254 Ill. App. 3d at 28.
"To allow zoning ordinances implementing an annexation agreement to exceed the statutory maximum term for enforceability of the agreement's provisions negates the intent of the statute." Bank of Waukegan, 254 Ill. App. 3d at 29.
This court further explained:
"Here, it was the annexation agreement which bestowed any right to zoning classification or special-use permits, and the ordinances zoning the property and granting those permits were simply the means by which the village was required to meet its obligations under the annexation agreement.
We thus believe that the special-use permits were unenforceable after the expiration of the annexation agreement. Consequently, no special-use permits for a PUD covered the property at the time the developers sought to construct their apartment complex." Bank of Waukegan, 254 Ill. App. 3d at 30.