Introduction of BUILD Plan Legislation Proposes Statewide Housing Development Reform and more...

Introduction of BUILD Plan Legislation Proposes Statewide Housing Development Reform

In mid-February, the Governor delivered his State of the State address and budget proposal for the 2027 State Fiscal Year. During his presentation, Governor Pritzker shared his concerns about the availability and cost of housing across Illinois, noting that “local regulations have made it too difficult and costly to build new housing” and citing “bureaucratic red tape” as an impediment to residential development activity. To combat these issues, the Governor announced the Building Up Illinois Development (BUILD Plan), an initiative to lower housing costs by making it more efficient and cost effect to build housing in Illinois. This initiative includes several legislative proposals that have since been introduced in the Illinois General Assembly.

House Bill 5626: Housing Omnibus

HB 5626 is a 40-page omnibus bill that includes a host of amendments to the Illinois Municipal Code and Illinois Counties Code addressing issues including impact fees, “middle housing” development, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), single-stair regulations, among others. In addition to HB 5626, several bills have been introduced in the Illinois Senate which propose the same substantive changes at an issue-by-issue level.

Senate Bill 4060: Middle Housing & Statewide Standards

SB 4060 proposes several changes to the Illinois Municipal Code with the express purpose of expanding housing choice and increasing the supply of “middle housing,” which includes duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage clusters, townhomes, attached courtyard housing, detached courtyard housing, and stacked flat-plexes. If enacted, SB 4060 would limit the imposition of local standards (including bulk, lot area, setbacks, and other restrictions) that are not “clear and objective” as defined in the Bill. The Bill also proposes to prohibit municipalities from enforcing standards that impose requirements on middle housing that are more stringent than those applicable to detached single-family units and restricts the use of “discretionary review,” such as special use permitting and variations for middle housing unless the same process is required for single-family homes.

Senate Bill 4061: Single-Stair Reform

SB 4061 provides that, beginning January 1, 2027, no building code adopted by a municipality may prohibit a residential building from having a single stairway serving as an exit for all units if the building exhibits certain features (limited height, sufficient automatic sprinkler installation, and ample emergency escape and rescue openings for residents).

Senate Bill 4062: Statewide Impact Fee Calculation

SB 4062 proposes a plan to implement statewide municipal impact fee calculations. The Bill, if approved, would authorize and direct the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (IDCEO) to issue mandatory statewide formulas, multipliers, and other tools for calculating and imposing impact fees at the local level. The Bill sets forth several deadlines for compliance with its provisions, including an overall 30-month timeframe for municipalities to being calculating impact fees in accordance with the formulas and guidance materials to be published by the IDCEO.

Senate Bill 4063: Third-Party Plan Review

SB 4063 provides uniform deadlines for municipal building permit review and inspections, proposing the following deadlines:

o Plan Review:

§ A municipality must complete its initial plan review (undefined term) within 15 business days after receipt of an application for a 1-family or 2-family residential project.

§ A municipality must complete its initial plan review (undefined term) within 30 business days after receipt of an application for a multifamily, mixed-use, or commercial project.

§ Any subsequent reviews must be completed within 10 business days of the revisions being submitted.

o Inspections: a municipality must conduct any required inspection within 2 business days of receiving a request.

Under SB 4063, if a municipality failed to comply with the plan review and inspection deadlines, an applicant would be able to retain a qualified third-party professional to conduct the review or inspection. These professionals must be licensed architects or engineers and be certified under one of several national building code standards. Upon submission of third-party plan reviews and inspection reports, municipalities would be limited in their ability to audit the reviews and impose additional standards for projects

Senate Bill 4064: Parking Reform

SB 4064 proposes to limit municipal parking requirements starting January 1, 2027. Specifically municipalities would be prohibited from requiring more than 0.5 parking space per multifamily dwelling, or more than 1 parking space per single-family home. Municipalities would also be restricted from establishing parking minimums for certain uses including affordable housing projects, dwellings smaller than 1,500 square feet, and others.

Senate Bill 4071: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

SB 4071 provides that every municipality must permit ADUs in all zoning districts allowing single-family dwellings without additional requirements related to lot size, setbacks, aesthetic standards, design review, frontage, space limitations, or controls beyond those imposed for single-family homes. The Bill also limits other ADU regulations, including by prohibiting municipalities from requiring a familial relationship between occupants of an ADU and the principal structure on a lot.

Again, the proposals in Senate Bills 4060–4064 and Senate Bill 4071 have also been introduced in the Illinois House through House Bill 5626. All of the legislative initiatives summarized above also include express language preempting home rule units from regulating in a manner more restrictive to the various housing initiatives than provided in the bills. Readers should note that these bills were only recently introduced, and some (or all) may be subject to amendments, debate, and delays as they make their way through the General Assembly. We will be tracking this legislation to provide key updates as the spring legislative session gets underway.

Post Authored by Erin Monforti, Ancel Glink

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 102: Web Accessibility

Ancel Glink's Quorum Forum Podcast just released Episode 102: Web Accessibility.

In this episode, Jamie Wilkey, a Partner at Lauterbach & Amen, joins Ancel Glink’s Katie Nagy to discuss the Department of Justice’s final rule on web accessibility under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). They explore the new requirements for state and local governments to ensure their web content and mobile applications are accessible to individuals with disabilities, and offer practical advice on implementation, technical standards, and compliance deadlines (starting on April 24, 2026 for some larger governments).

Highlights:

The Technical Standard: An overview of WCAG 2.1 Level AA, the benchmark for digital accessibility compliance.

Defining Web Content: Understanding how the rule applies to websites, mobile apps, social media, online payment portals, and digital documents like meeting minutes and agendas.

Compliance Deadlines: Key dates for local governments (April 24, 2026 for populations over 50,000; April 26, 2027 for smaller entities and special districts).

Practical Implementation: Steps for success, including identifying an internal team, conducting an inventory of digital assets, and prioritizing remediation.

Exceptions and Limitations: A breakdown of what content is exempt, such as archived web content, pre-existing conventional documents, and certain third-party content.

Risk Management: Analyzing the legal, financial, and reputational risks of non-compliance.

Public Comment: A discussion on the Seventh Circuit's decision in O’Donnell v. City of Chicago regarding vehicle forfeiture programs and unconstitutional takings.

Resources:

Fact Sheet: New Rule on the Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Apps Provided by State and Local Governments

DOJ Guidance: First Steps Toward Complying with the ADA Title II Web and Mobile Application Accessibility Rule

Municipal Minute: City's Vehicle Forfeiture Program Not an Unconstitutional Taking

Court Finds FOIA Search Reasonable But Sends Request for Civil Penalties for Late Response Back to Circuit Court

An Illinois Appellate Court recently found a public body's search for records in response to a FOIA request to be reasonable and adequate in Tobias v. City of Chicago's Office of Mayor.

An independent journalist submitted a FOIA request to the Office of Mayor for text messages between the Mayor and the President of the Chicago Teachers Union for the period from the date the Mayor took office to the date the FOIA was processed and all text messages sent or received by the Mayor's Chief of Staff for two specified dates.

A City FOIA officer extended the time for response and initiated a search of texts but the City did not respond by the extended due date. Shortly thereafter, the journalist filed a lawsuit against the City claiming it violated FOIA by not responding to the FOIA request. The City produced four pages of text messages as part of its response to the lawsuit, arguing that the case was now moot, and that it could not have produced the records by the original deadline because it did not possess them at that time. The circuit court ruled in the City's favor, finding that the City did not have the records in its possession at the time the FOIA response was due since the records had not been turned over to the City until after the deadline.

On appeal, the journalist argued that the City improperly narrowed its search for records, both in scope and time-frame. The Appellate Court disagreed, finding that the City's search was both reasonable and adequate in scope and time and there was no statutory requirement that records existing after the date of the City's search be provided. However, the Court determined that the circuit court needed to reconsider the journalist's request for civil penalties against the City for failing to respond to the FOIA request in a timely matter and remanded the case back for further proceedings.

Court Rules in Favor of Public Body in FOIA Case

In 2023, a FOIA requester mailed over 40 letters to the Illinois Secretary of State (ILSOS) seeking copies of various records. After ILSOS did not respond to his requests, the requester sued ILSOS alleging various FOIA violations. ILSOS filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, supported by the affidavit of its FOIA Officer, because (1) the requester failed to comply with ILSOS’s FOIA regulations, because the requests were improperly addressed—not directed to the designated address for ILSOS’s FOIA officer as identified on its forms, and (2) because ILSOS never received the FOIA requests, it did not violate FOIA. The circuit court ruled in favor of ILSOS, and the requester appealed. On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court’s ruling in favor of ILSOS. Lenard v. Office of the Illinois Secretary of State.

The appellate court determined that Section 3(h) of FOIA expressly authorizes public bodies to establish FOIA regulations governing the time, place, and person from whom records may be requested. In this case, because the requester failed to comply with ILSOS’s FOIA regulations for submitting FOIA requests by sending his requests to the wrong address rather than the address prescribed by ILSOS in its forms, the appellate court determined that ILSOS never received his requests within the meaning of FOIA, and ILSOS’s duty to respond was never triggered. Furthermore, because the requester’s FOIA requests were improperly submitted to ILSOS, the requester was never denied access to public records, and ILSOS did not improperly deny the requester access to records in violation of FOIA.

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

Appellate Court Sends FOIA Challenge Back to Circuit Court

In 2022, a requester sued a county board, a county sheriff, and a county’s state’s attorney’s office (defendants) for several alleged FOIA violations. During the litigation, defendants requested the circuit court to: (1) allow defendants to designate one of the requester’s FOIA requests as unduly burdensome because defendants identified over 69,000 pages of responsive records to the request, or (2) in the alternative, to perform an in camera review of defendants responsive records to assess whether FOIA exemptions applied to the records. The circuit court appointed a special master to review defendants’ 69,000 pages of records to determine which parts of the records qualified for exemptions, and ordered the requester to pay the special master’s retainer prior to the start of their services. The requester did not make the court-ordered retainer payment, which led the circuit court to rule in favor of defendants, finding that the requester’s FOIA request was unduly burdensome, and that the requester failed to comply with the court’s prior order requiring pre-payment of the special master’s fees for review services.

After the requester appealed the circuit court’s ruling, an Illinois Appellate Court: (1) held that the circuit court erred when it appointed a special master and required the requester to pay the special master’s review services fees, and (2) ordered the circuit court to re-instate the requester’s FOIA lawsuit and conduct that proceeding in accordance with FOIA. Dorman v. Madison County.

The Appellate Court reasoned that FOIA places the burden of justifying nondisclosure squarely on public bodies, and that FOIA contemplates that the court itself will resolve disputes concerning exemptions and disclosure. The Appellate Court determined that the circuit court’s inherent authority to control their proceedings may not be exercised in a way that conflicts with, or expands beyond, a legislatively prescribed statutory scheme. Here, the Appellate Court determined that the FOIA statute does not permit courts to (i) delegate their express statutory in camera review responsibilities to third parties, (ii) impose compliance or review-related costs on a requester, or (iii) condition the continuation of a requester’s FOIA action on their payment for special master services.

Post Authored by Eugene Boltnikov, Ancel Glink

Municipal Minute