Illinois Compiled Statutes
65 ILCS 5/7-3-6 (2026)
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 disconnected which (1) contains 20 or more acres; (2) is located on the border of the municipality; (3) if disconnected, will not result in the isolation of any part of the municipality from the remainder of the municipality; (4) if disconnected, the growth prospects and plan and zoning ordinances, if any, of such municipality will not be unreasonably disrupted; (5) if disconnected, no substantial disruption will result to existing municipal service facilities, such as, but not limited to, sewer systems, street lighting, water mains, garbage collection, and fire protection; (6) if disconnected, the municipality will not be unduly harmed through loss of tax revenue in the future; and (7) does not contain any territory designated as part of a redevelopment project area as that term is defined in subsection (p) of Section 11-74
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(65 ILCS 5/7-3-6)
(from Ch. 24, par. 7-3-6)
Sec. 7-3-6.
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 disconnected which (1) contains 20 or more
acres; (2) is located on the border
of the municipality; (3) if disconnected, will not result in the isolation
of any part of the municipality from the remainder of the
municipality; (4) if disconnected, the growth prospects and plan
and zoning ordinances, if
any, of such municipality will not be unreasonably disrupted; (5) if
disconnected, no substantial disruption will result to existing municipal
service facilities, such as, but not limited to, sewer systems, street
lighting, water mains, garbage collection, and fire protection; (6) if
disconnected, the municipality will not be unduly harmed through loss of tax
revenue in the future; and (7) does not contain any territory designated as part of a redevelopment project area as that term is defined in subsection (p) of Section 11-74.4-3 of this Code or any territory otherwise subject to tax increment financing by the municipality. Item (7) applies to petitions and actions pending on the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 100th General Assembly as well as petitions and actions commenced on or after that date. The procedure for disconnection shall be as follows:
The owner or owners of record of any such area of land shall file a
petition in the circuit court of the county where the land is situated,
alleging facts in support of the disconnection. The municipality from which
disconnection is sought shall be made a defendant, and it, or any taxpayer
residing in that municipality, may appear and defend against the petition.
If the court finds that the allegations of the petition are true and that
the area of land is entitled to disconnection 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
court shall enter an order dismissing the petition.
An area of land, or any part thereof, disconnected under the provisions
of this Section from a municipality which was incorporated at least 2 years
prior to the date of the filing of such petition for disconnection shall
not be subdivided into lots and blocks within one year from the date of such
disconnecting. A plat of any such proposed subdivision shall not be
accepted for recording or registration within such one year period, unless
the land comprising such proposed subdivision shall have been thereafter
incorporated into a municipality.
(Source: P.A. 100-1134, eff. 11-28-18.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2018–2021 · leading case: Chicago Title Land Trust Co. v. Cnty. of Will, 2018 IL App (3d) 160713 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
Chicago Title Land Trust Co. v. Cnty. of Will, 2018 IL App (3d) 160713 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “¶ 41 As noted by Justice Holdridge in his dissent, this public policy argument is defeated by section 7-3-4 of the Municipal Code ( 65 ILCS 5/7-3-4 (West 2016) ).”
City of Springfield v. Ameren Illinois Co., 2018 IL App (4th) 170755 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “2d 1241 (citing 65 ILCS 5/7-3-6 (West 2004) ). The village filed a counterclaim, seeking to enforce the 20-year agreement.”
I-57 & Curtis, LLC v. Urbana & Champaign Sanitary Dist., 2020 IL App (4th) 190850 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “But the disconnection statute, section 7-3-6 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/7-3-6 (West 2006)) drove the analysis in Austin Bank, whereas the present case has nothing to do with the disconnection statute.”
I-57 & Curtis, LLC v. Urbana & Champaign Sanitary Dist., 2020 IL App (4th) 190850 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “But the disconnection statute, section 7-3-6 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/7-3-6 (West 2006)) drove the analysis in Austin Bank, whereas the present case has nothing to do with the disconnection statute.”
— 65 ILCS 5/7-3-6(3) — 2 cases
I-57 & Curtis, LLC v. Urbana & Champaign Sanitary Dist., 2020 IL App (4th) 190850 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “But the disconnection statute, section 7-3-6 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/7-3-6 (West 2006)) drove the analysis in Austin Bank, whereas the present case has nothing to do with the disconnection statute.”
I-57 & Curtis, LLC v. Urbana & Champaign Sanitary Dist., 2020 IL App (4th) 190850 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “But the disconnection statute, section 7-3-6 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/7-3-6 (West 2006)) drove the analysis in Austin Bank, whereas the present case has nothing to do with the disconnection statute.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|