Cities Must Hold Up Their End of Agreement with Landowners!

A recent case, The Reserve at Woodstock v. The City of Woodstock, 2011 IL App (2d) 100676 (September 28,2011) makes it clear that if cities have an agreement with landowners, they must honor it and not try to subvert it.

Reserve (the developer) owned property in Woodstock which was subject to an Annexation Agreement.  Pursuant to that agreement, the developer submitted a plan to develop the property into multiple single-family residential lots.  Not only did the the City of Woodstock deny the proposed subdivision, but it further rezoned the land and disconnected it from the City of Woodstock.  The developer sued.

The court found that the developer had a vested right in having its plat approved under the prior zoning rules.  Furthermore, the court found that the City of Woodstock was unfair and failed to act in good faith by not honoring the Annexation Agreement.  Furthermore, Woodstock delayed the process so the term of the Annexation Agreement would expire, and then re-zoned and disconnected the land from Woodstock entirely. 

While the court found in favor of the developer, did the developer really win?  Unfortunately, the developer initiated this process in 2003, before the real estate market reached its peak.  However, because Woodstock did not process the subdivision expeditiously, and because the matter eventually reached the courts, a decision was not rendered until September of 2011.  The housing boom is long over.  It seems that any profits the developer must have hoped to gain from the subdivision are lost, at least for now.