New Officials, Old Challenges, and the Enduring Power of Procedure in VB BTS II, LLC v. Bloomingdale Township

In VB BTS II, LLC v. Bloomingdale Township, 2025 IL App (3d) 240263-U, the Illinois Appellate Court vacated a circuit court judgment affirming Bloomingdale Township’s denial of a road access permit. At first glance, this dispute over a narrow strip of grassland may appear routine, but its real lesson lies in the quiet power of process and the fresh, decisive leadership that new township officials bring.

As townships across Illinois welcome newly elected officials, there is a palpable sense of momentum. This new energy is more than symbolic, it's operational. It’s reflected in better-defined policies, sharper scrutiny of land use claims, and a commitment to upholding statutory authority even when private actors push back. Bloomingdale Township’s handling of the VB BTS dispute illustrates how incoming boards and reorganized departments can successfully carry forward their duties with professionalism, integrity, and a firm grasp of their legal responsibilities.

Background: A Disputed Strip of Grass

At the heart of the case lies a 66-foot-wide strip of unimproved land in the Medinah Spring Valley Lake subdivision. This “Disputed Area” was marked on a 1955 plat as a “66 FT. EASEMENT FOR FUTURE ROAD.” Plaintiff VB BTS II, LLC (a subsidiary of Vertical Bridge) leased a portion of nearby lot 171 from Medinah Spring Valley Lake, Inc. (MSVL) to build a cell tower, but lacked direct access to a public road.

In 2020, the then-highway commissioner granted a permit to construct an access drive over the Disputed Area. However, following the commissioner’s resignation and the dissolution of the road district, the Township declined to renew the permit without a license agreement, which the Township argued required elector approval under section 30-50 of the Township Code.

The Township’s formal decision stated:

·      “The Disputed Area has been dedicated to the Township for the benefit of the public as a future public road,”

and further found that it was:

·      “under the jurisdiction and control of the Township”

and therefore:

·      “not available for purely private use absent elector approval.”

Vertical Bridge sought relief through the courts, arguing the Disputed Area was private land and not subject to elector control. It relied on an updated DuPage County GIS map, an affidavit from a land surveyor, and a 2023 survey purporting to show the Disputed Area within Lot 171, ostensibly owned by MSVL.

In defending its decision, the Township pointed out:

“An earlier survey, consistent with the County’s GIS map at the time, shows the Disputed Area outside of Lot 171. Vertical Bridge’s later submissions do not rebut the Township’s prior acceptance of dedication for future roadway use.”

The Township’s revised decision reinforced that even if the land were not currently developed:

“The Township may hold dedicated property in trust for future use, and may reject private encroachments unless the public interest is served and all legal conditions are satisfied.”

Despite Vertical Bridge securing a county building permit and initiating litigation, the Township stood firm. After multiple administrative denials, the circuit court ultimately upheld the Township’s position. Vertical Bridge appealed.

Appellate Holding: Missing the Fee Owner

In a significant procedural ruling, the Appellate Court did not reach the merits. Instead, it found the circuit court's judgment void because MSVL, record owner of the underlying lot and potential fee owner of the Disputed Area, had not been joined.

As the Court explained, MSVL possessed a “present and substantial interest” in the disputed property. Whether or not the strip had been statutorily or impliedly dedicated as a public easement, MSVL, as Branigar’s successor-in-interest, was central to resolving the ownership question. The Township's claim that it held the Disputed Area in public trust for future roadway purposes could not be litigated in MSVL’s absence.

This is classic “necessary party” doctrine. A court cannot adjudicate a property interest without all those potentially impacted present. Nor could Vertical Bridge, as an easement holder, adequately represent MSVL’s fee ownership. The judgment was therefore void for want of jurisdiction.

Lessons for Township Officials

From a defense perspective, this case underscores several key principles:

1. Assert Local Control, But Follow Procedure

The Township commendably invoked its statutory authority to demand elector approval before transferring property rights. It defended public access and the integrity of its records, including its acceptance of road dedications. Yet, it also respected the proper administrative review channels and responded in detail to remands and supplemental evidence.

2. Ensure All Stakeholders Are Joined

Whether defending land use decisions or enforcement actions, townships must be vigilant in identifying all potentially interested parties. Here, the procedural misstep was the plaintiff’s, not the Township’s. Still, early motions highlighting necessary party issues may avoid wasted litigation.

3. Map Discrepancies Require Scrutiny

The case illustrates how GIS data, plats, and surveys can diverge. The Township correctly noted that GIS updates, while informative, are not legally dispositive. Accurate title research, historic plats, and formal acceptances are essential tools in verifying jurisdictional claims.

4. No Estoppel Against Public Entities

Even though Vertical Bridge was initially granted a permit, the Court accepted the Township’s argument that estoppel could not bar it from enforcing the law as later understood. Government agencies cannot be bound by unauthorized or mistaken acts of prior officials where statutory compliance is required.

Conclusion: A Case Study in the Strength of New Leadership

VB BTS II is not just about real estate boundaries or easements, it’s about what happens when new township officials are called to make tough decisions that affect their communities for years to come. These officials honored the past by defending the township’s legal rights, while looking ahead by insisting on full procedural integrity. Their refusal to rubber-stamp a permit without a lawful foundation protected both the public trust and the township’s long-term autonomy.

As newly elected township officials across Illinois settle into their roles, this case offers inspiration: you don’t have to be a long-serving veteran to make a meaningful impact. With good counsel, a steady hand, and an eye on the statutes, new leadership can steer complex situations to principled outcomes, just like Bloomingdale Township did here.