## Facts

- The Village of Chatham entered annexation agreements with owners of undeveloped, unincorporated land in Sangamon County, contemplating future annexation when contiguity requirements were met.
- Relying on the agreements, landowners sought and obtained Village permits and proceeded with development planning.
- Sangamon County notified developers and the Village that County building permits and County zoning/building regulations applied to the same property.
- The Village sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking a determination that the land covered by the annexation agreements was subject to Village “ordinances, control, and jurisdiction,” and to stop County interference.
- The case centered on Division 15.1 of the Illinois Municipal Code and § 11-15.1-2.1, which provides that property subject to an annexation agreement is subject to municipal ordinances and jurisdiction “in all respects” as if within corporate limits, with certain contiguity limits applicable only in specified counties (not including Sangamon).

## Issues

1. Whether Division 15.1 and § 11-15.1-2.1 grant the Village zoning and building-code jurisdiction over unincorporated land that is the subject of annexation agreements.
2. Whether § 11-15.1-2.1 is unconstitutional special legislation because it imposes distinct contiguity limitations only in specified geographic areas.
3. Whether the statute, as applied, is an invalid exercise of police power or otherwise improper, and whether summary judgment and declaratory relief were inappropriate due to alleged factual disputes.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the Village.
- The Court held that § 11-15.1-2.1 unambiguously places land subject to a valid annexation agreement under the municipality’s ordinances, control, and jurisdiction as if the land were within the municipality’s corporate limits, including zoning and building regulation.
- The Court rejected the County’s special-legislation challenge, concluding the geographic classification tied to contiguity limits was rationally related to legitimate legislative objectives.
- The Court upheld the statutory allocation of regulatory authority as a valid legislative exercise of state police power.
- The Court found no genuine issue of material fact; the dispute turned on statutory and constitutional interpretation, making declaratory and injunctive relief proper.

## Legal Principles

- Under 65 ILCS 5/11-15.1-2.1, property subject to a valid annexation agreement is subject to the municipality’s ordinances, control, and jurisdiction “in all respects” as if within municipal limits, including zoning and building-code authority.
- The General Assembly may allocate regulatory authority between counties and municipalities for unincorporated territory, within constitutional limits, as an exercise of the State’s police power.
- A statute with geographic classifications does not violate the Illinois special-legislation prohibition if the classification is rationally related to legitimate governmental purposes and is not arbitrary.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where material facts are undisputed and only legal questions remain; declaratory relief is appropriate to resolve an actual controversy over governmental authority.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court held that land governed by annexation agreements is regulated by the municipality as if within its boundaries, upheld § 11-15.1-2.1 against special-legislation and police-power challenges, and affirmed declaratory and injunctive relief preventing county interference with municipal permitting and regulation.


Village of Chatham v. County of Sangamon, 837 N.E.2d 29 (Ill. 2005)