In the Zone: Court Rejects Challenge to Zoning Approval for Dispensary and more...

In the Zone: Court Rejects Challenge to Zoning Approval for Dispensary

An Illinois Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of a neighbor objector lawsuit challenging a city's zoning approval of a marijuana dispensary. Neighbors Against a Marijuana Dispensary v. Chicago Zoning Board of Appeals, et al.

MariGrow applied for a special use permit from a city zoning board of appeals to establish an adult use cannabis dispensary in the city. A sign was posted on the property indicating the application had been filed, and notice of a community meeting was published in the newspaper. The applicant also mailed notice of the community meeting to property owners within 250 feet of the property, and the alderman for the ward in which the property was located sent an e-newsletter to all ward residents informing them of the community meeting. More than a hundred people attended the community meeting.

Two months after the community meeting, the ZBA held a public hearing on the special use application. A representative for an objector group requested a 60 day continuance of the hearing to prepare a formal case against the application, which was denied by the ZBA chair. At the hearing, both the applicant and representatives of the objector group testified about the application for a special use permit. After the application was approved by the ZBA, the objector group filed an administrative review action against the ZBA and applicant, arguing that its due process rights had been violated when the ZBA denied its request for a continuance and granted the special use permit. The circuit court ruled in favor of the ZBA, finding that the objector group was not denied due process and had not established that it had standing to pursue the administrative review action.

On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the ruling in favor of the ZBA.

First, the Appellate Court held that the objector group failed to identify any members owning property within 250 feet of the proposed dispensary, either at the zoning hearing or in its complaint, and its general assertion in the complaint that the group had members who owned property within 250 feet was insufficient to demonstrate standing under section 11-13-7 of the Zoning Enabling Act.

As to the due process claim, the Court found that notice of the zoning hearing complied with all statutory requirements and that the objector group did, in fact, have (and exercised) its right to be heard at the hearing. The Court rejected the objector group's argument that the ZBA should have granted its request for a continuance to give it more time to prepare its objections, finding that representatives of the objector group had been involved in the previous community meeting two months before the hearing, and that any failure to adequately prepare was not due to lack of notice or insufficient time.

In short, the Appellate Court determined that the ZBA did not violate the objector group's rights when it approved the special use application.

Appellate Court Sends FOIA Case Back to Circuit Court

In Dorman v. Madison County Board, an Illinois Appellate Court determined that the circuit court made an error in dismissing a FOIA challenge and sent the case back for further proceedings.

An individual filed two separate FOIA requests for various records, including records relating to allegations of employee misconduct and communications regarding an election. The individual subsequently filed a lawsuit against the public bodies involved, claiming they violated FOIA regarding both requests. The public bodies responded that they had provided records in response to most of the requests but regarding records not produced, the public bodies asked the circuit court to allow them to rely on the unduly burdensome provision of FOIA as the responsive records exceeded 69,000 records (the public bodies did not assert that provision in their initial response to the FOIA request). The circuit court initially denied that request and appointed a special master to review the responsive records, but later issued a ruling dismissing the case, finding that the request was unduly burdensome under 3(g) of FOIA.

The requester appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed the dismissal of the case. First, the Appellate Court determined that FOIA does not authorize a circuit court to appoint a special master to review records or to require a requester plaintiff to pay the costs of the special master. Second, the Court held that although the public bodies can rely on the "unduly burdensome" provision of FOIA to defend against a FOIA lawsuit, they must first give the requester an opportunity to narrow the request.

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 103: Zoning, Preemption, and Housing: Navigating the BUILD Plan

Building on yesterday's blog post, Ancel Glink just released Quorum Forum Podcast Episode 103: Zoning, Preemption, and Housing: Navigating the BUILD Plan. In this episode, Ancel Glink attorneys Erin Monforti, David Silverman, and Greg Jones break down Governor Pritzker’s proposed BUILD Plan (Building up Illinois Development). This initiative intends to reduce costs and eliminate barriers to housing development, but it includes proposals that could significantly limit local authority over zoning, building codes, and fees. The team discusses what these potential statewide mandates could mean for the future of Illinois communities.

Highlights:

The BUILD Plan: An overview of the Governor’s February 2026 proposal to cut "bureaucratic red tape" through new legislative and regulatory standards.
"Middle Housing" Mandates: A look at bills that would require local governments to allow duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes in any area currently zoned for single-family homes.
Limits on Local Review: Discussion on provisions that would prevent municipalities from requiring special use permits or variances for middle housing if those same rules don’t apply to single-family homes.
Statewide Zoning Standards: The potential shift toward inflexible statewide rules for residential building heights, setbacks, and how much of a lot can be covered by a building.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): How proposed laws would normalize "granny flats" across the state, potentially making it easier for homeowners to get financing while increasing local density.
Standardizing Impact Fees: Assessing the move toward mandatory state formulas for school and park impact fees to make costs more predictable for developers.
Strict Permit Deadlines: New requirements for municipalities to complete plan reviews within 15 to 30 days, or else developers may hire their own third-party inspectors to do the work.
Public Comment: A critical update for FOIA officers regarding emails caught in spam filters. A recent court ruled that a request is considered "received" even if it is automatically quarantined by your IT system.

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 effective 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 begin 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: