Regional Board's Decision Allowing Property to Switch School Districts Struck Down

Regional Board's Decision Allowing Property to Switch School Districts Struck Down

  Tuesday, September 15, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court recently issued a ruling regarding a school detachment/annexation petition in a lengthy opinion analyzing the requirements for a property owner to detach their property from one school district and attach it to another school district. Board of Education of Jasper County Community Unit Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Regional Board of School Trustees, et al. The case has a convoluted history with multiple motions to reconsider and changes of position of both the Regional Board and circuit court, which partially explains the long opinion.

Homeowners of property located in Jasper County (petitioners) filed a petition with the Regional Board of School Trustees requesting that their property be detached from Jasper County School District (District 1) and annexed to Dieterich Community School District in Effingham County (District 30). Their property was located entirely within Jasper County and approximately 1.5 miles from the boundary of District 30 and did not touch any part of District 30. Owners of property located between the petitioners' property and the District 30 boundary joined the petition, asking that a 10 foot wide strip of their property be included in the detachment/annexation petition. The petition alleged that the territory to be detached and annexed was "contiguous" to District 30.

District 1 argued against the petition, saying it did not comply with section 7-4 of the School Code because the detachment, if granted, would result in districts that were not "compact and contiguous" as required by the Illinois Constitution and the School Code, and would create multiple "islands" that would destroy the compactness of both districts. The Regional Board conducted a hearing on the petition, hearing testimony from the petitioners and District 1 representatives. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Regional Board initially denied the petition, finding that the detriment to District 1 outweighed the benefit to the petitioners and District 30. The petitioners requested a rehearing, and at the conclusion of that rehearing, the Regional Board overturned its previous decision and granted the petition, allowing the detachment and annexation of the territory. 

District 1 filed an administrative review action with the circuit court to appeal the Regional Board's decision. The circuit court initially reversed the Regional Board, finding its decision to grant the detachment/annexation petition to be contrary to the Illinois Constitution and the School Code. The petitioners again filed a motion to reconsider, and a new judge assigned to the case vacated the prior judge's order and upheld the Regional Board's granting of the petition.

On appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, that Court reviewed the administrative record of the Regional Board's multiple hearings, as well as documentary evidence, including a map showing the petitioners' property and the narrow strip that would connect the petitioners' property to District 30 if annexed to that district (see photo from opinion below), and determined that the Regional Board erred in granting the petition. The Court found that the petitioners failed to show how the proposed detachment and annexation would result in "compact and contiguous" districts as required by Illinois case law, the Illinois constitution, and Illinois statutes. In sum, the Court held that the petition should not have been granted, and it reversed the Regional Board's order and the circuit court's decision upholding the Regional Board's order. There was a dissenting opinion which would have upheld the Regional Board's granting of the petition.

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 109: The 100-Year Legacy of Euclid

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 109: The 100-Year Legacy of Euclid

  Tuesday, September 08, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink released Episode 109 of its Quorum Forum Podcast: Quorum Forum Ep. 109: The 100-Year Legacy of Euclid.

This year marks 100 years since the United States Supreme Court decided the landmark zoning case, Euclid v. Ambler Realty. In this episode, we share a recorded presentation from Ancel Glink's David Silverman, FAICP, and ZoneCo's Sean Suder, as a sneak preview of their upcoming live plenary session at the APA-IL State Conference on September 30, 2026! 

Episode Highlights

• The Public Safety Roots of Zoning: Why early 20th-century industrial chaos, street accidents involving children, noise, and pollution prompted the Supreme Court to step in

• The Dual Legacy: How the "intensity of use" rules established in 1926 successfully protected neighborhoods but fostered exclusionary development patterns

• Modern Prescriptions: A look at statewide zoning challenges, local preemption, and the "BUILD" legislative strategies impacting local authority

Read More

City Not Liable for Damages in Failed Sale of City Land

City Not Liable for Damages in Failed Sale of City Land

  Wednesday, August 12, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit claiming a city was responsible for damages relating to a failed sale of city land because of alleged verbal promises of a city employee. Arroyo et al. v. City of Chicago.

According to the lawsuit, the city economic development coordinator met with a potential purchaser of property that was owned by the city. The city entered into a right of entry agreement allowing the potential purchaser to access the properties to conduct due diligence. However, the parties did not enter into a purchase and sale agreement for the sale of the property. The potential purchaser retained consultants to conduct investigations of soil and other conditions of the property. The potential purchaser claims that the city employee assured him that the city would sell the property to him, but when he was not provided with an appraisal by the city to complete the negotiations for the purchase, he filed a lawsuit seeking $500,000 in damages from the city for the investigations. The circuit court dismissed the case, and he appealed.

The Appellate Court upheld the dismissal. First, the Court held that there could be no "implied-in-fact contract" under a promissory estoppel theory because the city could not be bound by a contract that does not comply with legal requirements for a valid contract. Here, city ordinances provided that only the city council had the authority to sell city land, so any promises made by a city employee were void and unenforceable.

Second, it was not reasonable for the plaintiff to rely on assurances from a city employee who did not have actual authority to bind the city. 

Third, the Court noted that verbal contracts for the sale of land are unenforceable.

Finally, the Court held that the right of entry agreement that the parties did enter into did not provide for compensation to the plaintiff for his due diligence efforts, which were conducted to benefit the plaintiff, and not the city.

Read More

Ordinance Violation Order Vacated for Failure to Properly Serve Notice of Administrative Hearing

Ordinance Violation Order Vacated for Failure to Properly Serve Notice of Administrative Hearing

  Monday, July 27, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court reversed a city's decision regarding an ordinance violation, finding that the city lacked jurisdiction because it failed to properly serve the homeowner under the city's hearing and notice procedures. McCain v. City of Granite City.

A city sent a homeowner letters notifying her that her property was in violation of several local property maintenance regulations. The letters gave her a few weeks to cure the violations, and when that deadline passed without a cure, the city sent notice to the homeowner by regular mail of an administrative hearing on the violations. The homeowner argued that the city's service of notice of the hearing was defective because she was not served personally as required by section 2-203 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The homeowner did not appear at the administrative hearing, and the city's administrative officer found her liable and issued a decision ordering her to pay fines in the amount of $575, plus court fees. The homeowner appealed the judgment to the circuit court, arguing that the administrative hearing officer had no jurisdiction to issue the decision because she was not properly served with the complaint.

The city argued that its notice to appear was adequate to initiate an enforcement action that doesn't involve a jail sentence, and that personal service of the complaint and a summons was not required. The circuit court agreed with the city, finding that the city properly served the homeowner with notice to appear, and that there was no violation of the homeowner's due process rights where she had notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard.

On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the ruling in favor of the city. As an initial matter, the Appellate Court rejected the homeowner's argument that the Code of Civil Procedure (state statute) applied to the city's administrative hearing process, finding that the city had authority to establish its own hearing process and notice requirements for administrative hearings on ordinance violations. Nevertheless, the court did find that the city violated its own hearing procedures, which required that notice of an administrative hearing be served personally, by certified mail, or by posting notice on the property. Because the city served the notice by regular mail (which was not identified in the city's procedures), it did not comply with the city's own service requirements. The Court also noted that the city's own procedures required that certain information be included in the notice, such as the fine and any penalties for late payment or failure to attend the hearing, but that information was not included in the city's notice to the homeowner. Because the city failed to comply with its own service requirements, the Court found that the hearing body did not have jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing and vacated the violation order and fines. 

Read More

In the Zone: Court Rejects "Takings" Challenge to City's Rental Assistance Ordinance

In the Zone: Court Rejects "Takings" Challenge to City's Rental Assistance Ordinance

  Thursday, July 23, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a "takings" challenge to a city ordinance that protects tenants in residential buildings when ownership is transferred through a foreclosure action. BBLI Edison, LLC v. City of Chicago.

In 2021, the City of Chicago adopted the "Keep Chicago Renting Ordinance." That ordinance requires anyone who obtains a rental property through a foreclosure action to negotiate new leases with existing tenants in good faith and if the tenant declines to renew a lease, pay the tenant $10,600 to assist with relocation expenses. When BBLI took control of a rental property through a sheriff's deed in 2024, BBLI followed the procedures under the ordinance for negotiating new leases, but at least five tenants declined new leases and requested the relocation assistance fee. BBLI filed a lawsuit against the city claiming that the ordinance violated its civil rights because requiring payment of the fee constituted an unconstitutional "takings" under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, and BBLI appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Seventh Circuit uphold the dismissal of the case. 

First, the Court found that the city had authority to adopt the ordinance as a regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship. 

Second, the Court rejected BBLI's argument that the relocation assistance fee requirement was a "physical" taking because it transfers wealth, finding this ordinance to be similar to rent control regulations which courts have found are not "physical" takings. 

Third, the Court did not find a "regulatory" taking because, among other things, the city's ordinance did not interfere with BBLI's "investment-backed expectations" since the ordinance was already in effect when BBLI purchased the property.

Finally, the Court rejected BBLI's "unconstitutional conditions" argument because BBLI was not asking for permission to build or engage in some other lawful activity that the city was withholding or imposing conditions on the issuance. Instead, the ordinance was enacted to further the city's interest in keeping its residents housed.

In short, the Court upheld the dismissal of BBLI's "takings" challenge to the rental assistance ordinance.

Read More

In the Zone: Court Denies Injunction Against Village's Proposed Storm Improvements

In the Zone: Court Denies Injunction Against Village's Proposed Storm Improvements

  Monday, July 13, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

To alleviate flooding, a municipality designed and planned certain modifications to its stormwater system. A quarry owner opposed the planned improvements and filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop the municipality from modifying its stormwater system as planned. The trial court denied the injunction and ruled that the municipality possessed an easement across the quarry that was granted by a predecessor owner of the quarry. The owner appealed.

On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the ruling of the trial court. First, the Court determined that there was substantial evidence that the municipality held an easement across the quarry based on the installation of a stormwater pipe with the agreement of the predecessor quarry owner and language contained in an easement document. Next, the Court rejected the owner's argument that the municipality had abandoned its easement. Finally, the Court held that the owner had not established the elements necessary to obtain an injunction. In sum, the Court upheld the ruling in favor of the municipality. Hanson Aggregates Midwest, Inc. v. Village of La Grange.

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 107: 2026 APA-CMS Bar Exam

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 107: 2026 APA-CMS Bar Exam

  Monday, July 06, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink's Quorum Forum Podcast released Episode 107: 2026 APA-CMS Bar Exam. In this episode,  the American Planning Association Chicago Metro Section recently teamed up with Ancel Glink’s Quorum Forum podcast for the 11th Annual “Bar Exam” Planning Law Session. Recorded live at Goodwin’s in Chicago, this realistic, simulated law school experience tests planners and land use professionals on the latest legal precedents in wind energy, annexation, and First Amendment protections. As is tradition, all participants passed the bar, and teams competed for the prestigious (and five-foot-tall) Ancel Glink Cup. In this episode, Ancel Glink’s Dan Bolin, Megan Mack, and Tyler Smith are joined by special guest Phil Green, a Local Gov 250 Government Champion, who undergoes a high-tech “firmware update” to become the session’s first AI-powered planning law assistant.

In This Episode

§  [00:00] The Roll Call: Host Dan Bolin calls the meeting to order with professors Megan Mack and Tyler Smith, plus local government champion Phil Green.

§  [05:00] Round 1: Democracy at the Doorstep: Phil discusses his recognition as a Local Gov 250 Champion and his work on “democracy at the doorstep” in Hoffman Estates.

§  [11:30] Case 1.1 - Wind Farm Bans: A look at Hickory Wind LLC v. Village of Cedar Point, exploring why outright bans on lawful land uses exceed non-home rule authority.

§  [19:00] Case 1.2 - Zoning Finality: In Chosen Consulting LLC v. Town Council of Highland, we learn why ADA and discrimination claims do not bypass the requirement for a final zoning decision.

§  [22:30] Case 1.3 - Cross-Examination Rights: A resort project in Galena highlights the importance of maintaining a record when residents forfeit their right to cross-examine witnesses.

§  [26:30] Round 2: The Road to Houston: Phil shares takeaways from serving as the Education Chair for NPC26 in Detroit and teases a “Moon Joy” theme for NPC27 in Houston.

§  [31:45] Case 2.1 - Forceful Annexation: We review a 4.7% perimeter gap in Husky Transportation v. Village of Barrington Hills to define the “wholly bounded” standard.

§  [35:45] Case 2.2 - First Amendment Retaliation: The saga of the Minocqua Brewing Co. demonstrates that permit denials are not retaliatory if they would have occurred regardless of protected speech.

§  [39:15] Case 2.3 - The Hamburger UFOs: A whimsical mural case from Kansas tests “intermediate scrutiny” and whether cities can prove that burger art is more distracting than flower art.

§  [42:00] The Future of Planning Law: Megan and Tyler discuss the responsible use of AI in legal practice and how municipalities are responding to data center controversies involving power and water consumption.

§  [46:15] The Reveal of A.I. CPU: Phil Green manifests as the A.I. CPU, an assistant that is 100% confident, 60% accurate, and requires massive amounts of “liquid cooling” to function.

§  [48:00] Round 3: AI-Assisted Answers: The A.I. CPU helps navigate cases on warrantless rental inspections, daily fine calculations, and why missing scaffolding is not a legal defense for safety hazards.

§  [1:02:30] Crowning the Champions: We announce the winners of the 2026 Bar Exam and award the shiny gold Ancel Glink Cup to the “Transit Masters.”

Read More

In the Zone: Court Rejects "Equitable Estoppel" Claim of Property Owner

In the Zone: Court Rejects "Equitable Estoppel" Claim of Property Owner

  Tuesday, June 30, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of a municipality in a case brought by a property owner challenging the municipality's zoning decisions relating to the owner's commercial uses of property zoned in a Conservation zoning district. Deepe v. Village of Swansea Planning & Zoning Board.

The owner of two parcels of property applied for a zoning compliance certificate and construction permit to operate a commercial business on land zoned in the Conservation district. Over several years, the owner applied for and received permits and permission from the municipality to operate his business. After neighbors complained about the operation of the lawncare and storage businesses on the two parcels, the municipality notified the owner that his uses were nonconforming and he needed to bring his operations into compliance with the zoning regulations. The owner appealed the order to the zoning board, which ruled in favor of the municipality. He then appealed to the circuit court, which ruled in favor of the owner with respect to one of the parcels, finding that the municipality was "equitably estopped" from enforcing its regulations. However, the court found in favor of the municipality with respect to the second parcel. Both parties appealed to the Appellate Court.

On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's ruling in favor of the owner on his equitable estoppel claim. The Court first determined that the two parcels were zoned in the Conservation district, and the owner never applied for a rezoning to a more appropriate district. Second, the owner knew and even acknowledged that the Conservation district did not allow a storage business so he could not rely on any acquiescence by the municipality. Third, the Court acknowledged that while the municipality could have been more forceful in its enforcement, "slow enforcement" would not support an estoppel claim. In sum, the Court found in favor of the municipality, holding that the owner could not establish an "equitable estoppel" claim for its use of either parcel. 

There was a dissenting opinion that would have ruled in favor of the property owner on his equitable estoppel claims based on the actions of municipal officials and employees over the years with respect to the owner's uses. 

Read More

Abandonment Statute Does Not Require Proof of Delivery or Receipt of Notice

Abandonment Statute Does Not Require Proof of Delivery or Receipt of Notice

  Thursday, June 25, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court recently interpreted the abandonment procedures of the Illinois Municipal Code (Code), holding that a municipality does not have to prove actual delivery or receipt of notice to all parties with a record interest in order to obtain a judicial deed under section 11-31-1 of the Code. Village of Downers Grove v. Beckham.

A municipality filed a petition with the court under section 11-31-1 of the Code to request that the court declare a property abandoned and issue a judicial deed to the property as well as an order of demolition. The municipality argued that the property was in disrepair and unfit for occupancy, as well as dangerous and unsafe. The petition indicated that notices were sent by mail to all named defendants advising them of the court action. The owner of record executed a waiver of rights to challenge the petition. However, another defendant (Lakeview) with a security interest in the property objected to the petition based on notice deficiencies. After the municipality amended its petition and served notice by certified mail, Lakeview again objected to the petition on notice grounds. The circuit court ultimately granted the municipality's petition and issued a judicial deed for the property.

Lakeview appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in issuing the judicial deed because the municipality failed to establish that notice was actually delivered to or received by all interested parties. The municipality argued that the statute does not require proof of delivery, and the Appellate Court agreed, holding that section 11-31-1(d) of the Code does not condition the notice's effectiveness on actual delivery or receipt. Instead, the Code only requires the municipality to send the notice in the required manner - i.e., by certified or registered mail. As a result, the Appellate Court upheld the circuit court's issuance of the judicial deed.

Read More

In the Zone: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Lawsuit Against County Regarding Denial of Solar Facilities

In the Zone: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Lawsuit Against County Regarding Denial of Solar Facilities

  Monday, June 15, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

In January 2023, the Illinois General Assembly enacted Public Act 102-1123 (the Act) which, among other things, amended the Counties Code to codify new standards and procedures for the development of “commercial solar energy facilities” in counties across Illinois. Notable provisions of the Act include the following: 

• A restriction that counties may not adopt zoning regulations that “disallow, permanently ortemporarily,” commercial solar energy facilities in agricultural or industrial districts,
• Guidelines regarding maximum setbacks, fencing requirements, height, vegetative screening, etc.,
• A provision allowing counties to adopt standards for solar facilities, so long as county requirements are not “more restrictive” than those specified in the Act,
• A requirement that counties hold public hearings prior to making decisions to approve or deny solar facilities, and
• A provision stating that requests for siting approval or special use permits “shall be approved” if a request complies with the Counties Code, the local county zoning ordinance, and relevant state and federal statutes and regulations.

In 2024, two solar development companies submitted separate applications to a county seeking to develop commercial solar energy facilities within the county. Over the following several months, the developers appeared before the county zoning board of appeals and the zoning committee, which held public hearings and recommended that the county board deny the proposed project under the county’s unified development ordinance (UDO). Both projects were ultimately denied by the county board, and each developer filed a lawsuit requesting (1) a writ of mandamus to compel the county to issue their requested permits, and (2) a declaration that their project applications should be approved. The developers claimed their applications complied with the Act and all provisions of the UDO, and therefore the county was obligated to approve their application and issue all necessary permits for their projects. The county moved to dismiss both cases, arguing that the Act did not give the developers an absolute right to the permits requested.

The trial court ruled in the county's favor, dismissing both cases. The court determined that mandamus was not available because the county could not be compelled to exercise its discretionary zoning authority to issue siting approval or special use permits for the facilities. Furthermore, the court found that the developer’s claim for declaratory judgment was insufficiently plead, and gave the developers an opportunity to replead their complaint. Instead, both developers appealed the trial court’s decision, and the cases were consolidated before the Fourth District Appellate Court. 

On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the decision of the trial court, determining that mandamus was not available given the discretion vested in the county to make local zoning decisions (particularly decisions to grant or deny applications for special use permits). Tate Road Solar 1, LLC, et al. v. County of Winnebago. The Court found the Act did not prohibit the county from exercising discretion in determining whether to issue permits. Instead, by allowing counties to regulate commercial solar energy facilities as “special uses,” the Illinois General Assembly plainly intended that counties maintain some discretion over approval and siting for these land uses. The Court also determined that counties were permitted to apply their traditional, subjective standards used when making local zoning decisions. Additionally, because the Act requires a public hearing before a permit can be issued, the Court found that the county would need to exercise discretion in accepting testimony and evidence, and then weighing various standards to determine whether a permit should be issued. While the Act codified certain limitations on local authority to regulate solar facilities, the Court determined the General Assembly did not eliminate counties’ traditional discretion to make local zoning decisions. Therefore, mandamus was not an appropriate remedy to force the county to approve the developer’s applications and issue permits for the facilities.

As to the developers’ claims for declaratory judgment, the Court found that because the developers did not have a “clear right” to the permits, there was no actual controversy the developers could plead to seek a declaration that their permits be issued. In sum, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s decision dismissing the developers’ lawsuits for failing to state a proper claim for mandamus or declaratory relief.

Post Authored by Erin Monforti, Ancel Glink 

Read More

Case Was Properly Dismissed Where Appeal Not Served on City

Case Was Properly Dismissed Where Appeal Not Served on City

  Thursday, June 11, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

In Crane v. City of Rockford, an Illinois Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of an appeal of an administrative hearing officer's issuance of fines for building code violations where the property owner did not comply with the service requirements of state law.

A municipal administrative hearing officer found a property owner in violation of various building code provisions and assessed a fine of $64,000. The property owner filed an appeal with the circuit court within the statutory 35 day period but failed to properly serve the City and other defendants as required by section 3-103 of the Administrative Review Law. The City filed a motion to dismiss the case based on noncompliance with the service requirements of state law, and the circuit court and Appellate Courts ruled in favor of the City, finding that section 3-103 was mandatory, and both the filing of the appeal and "issuance of summons" on the defendants has to be accomplished within 35 days of the date the administrative decision is served. Here, although the owner had filed an affidavit with the filed complaint identifying the hearing officer and mayor as defendants to be served, he failed to pay the fee for certified mailing of the summonses, so they were not issued. As a result, his appeal of the $64,000 fine was properly dismissed.

Read More

Illinois General Assembly Spring 2026 End of Session Tracking

Illinois General Assembly Spring 2026 End of Session Tracking

  Friday, May 29, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

As the Illinois General Assembly draws closer to concluding its 2026 spring legislative session, there are a number of outstanding bills likely to be considered that would have a significant impact on local governments throughout Illinois. The General Assembly has been busy so far in the 2026 spring session passing a number of bills that will affect local government operations as well as a bill on regulating electric mobility devices. With three days left until the General Assembly recesses on May 31^st, the Governor’s BUILD Plan legislation, and other bills impacting local governments, may still be considered.

Below is a list of bills we’re tracking with updates on the bill’s status through May 28^th. 

Housing Legislation 

House Bill 5626: BUILD Plan Housing Omnibus Bill (First Reading; referred to House Rules Committee) 

Senate Bill 4060: Middle Housing & Statewide Standards (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4061: Single-Stair Reform (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4062: Statewide Impact Fee Calculation (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee)

 Senate Bill 4063: Third-Party Plan Review (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4064: Parking Reform (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4071: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 0331: Restock the Block Act (Second Reading; Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 introduced on May 21^st and recommended for adoption by the Senate Executive Committee) 

Senate Bill 0608: Federally Assisted Tenant Protection Act (Second Reading; Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 recommended for adoption by the Senate Executive Committee) 

Senate Bill 635: Faith-Based Housing and Mixed-Use By-Right Act (Second Reading; Senate Floor Amendment No.1 recommended for adoption by the Senate Executive Committee) 

House Bill 5765 / Senate Bill 4200: REAL Housing Act (Frist Reading; referred to House Rules Committee and Senate Assignments Committee) 

Other Legislation Affecting Local Governments 

House Bill 1429: Amendments to IL Homeless Bill of Rights (Second Reading; House Floor Amendment No. 1; House Floor Amendment No. 2 recommended for adoption by House Housing Committee; House Floor Amendment No. 3 recommended for approval by House Housing Committee; Bill and all House floor amendments re-referred to House Rules Committee)

House Bill 5513 / Senate Bill 4016: Power Act (First Reading; Bill re-referred to House Rules Committee and Senate Assignments Committee) 

House Bill 5326: Digital Library Protection Act (Passed House; House Floor Amendment No.1 and House Floor Amendment No. 2 adopted; First Reading in Senate; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

House Bill 4712: Amendments to Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (First Reading; Bill re-referred to House Rules Committee) 

Senate Bill 1796: Body Worn Camera FOIA Requests (Senate Committee Amendment No. 2 adopted; Passed Senate; Second Reading in House) 

Senate Bill 2715: OMA and FOIA Amendments: (Passed Senate; Second Reading in House; House Committee Amendment No. 1 adopted by House Executive Committee; House Floor Amendments No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, No. 7 recommended for adoption by House Executive Committee) 

House Bill 5784 / Senate Bill 20: Joint Omnibus CBD and Cannabis Regulatory Reform (First Reading in House and referred to House Rules Committee; First Reading in Senate; Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Legislation Passed By Both Chambers 

Senate Bill 3336: Electric Mobility Devices (Passed both houses as of May 27, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2836: Government Account Audits (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2826: IMRF Pension Benefits (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2769: Transfer of Funds Among Municipal Business District Tax Allocation Funds (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2102: Taxing District Budget and Appropriations Ordinance Filing (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 638: Municipal Postemployment Benefit Trusts (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2761: Service Animals and In-Service ADA Trainings (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2913: Teacher Evaluation Plans (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2914: Procedure for Removing/Dismissing Teachers (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 3361: Religious Hairstyles in Schools (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4375: School District Interfund Transfers (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 5542: Park District Disconnection Petitions (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 5166: Dissolution of Special Districts (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 5167: Township Weed Cutting (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4788: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training Curriculum (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature from Governor) 

House Bill 4862: School Staff Mental Health Policies (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature from Governor) 

House Bill 4491: Amendment to Public Employee Disability Act (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 2137: Amendment to Governmental Account Audit Act (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4397: School Psychologist Qualifications (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 3743: School District Handbook Railroad Safety Messaging (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4137: Amendment to Education for Homeless Children Act (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4361: Building Inspector Certifications (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 1353: Amendment to Volunteer Emergency Worker Job Protection Act (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4541: Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (Passed both houses as of May 14, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Post Authored by Tyler Smith, Ancel Glink

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 105: Anatomy of a Redevelopment Agreement (Part 2)

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 105: Anatomy of a Redevelopment Agreement (Part 2)

  Friday, May 08, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink's Quorum Forum Podcast has released a new episode, Episode 105: Anatomy of a Redevelopment Agreement (Part 2). 

In this episode, we return to the Southland Development Authority’s “TIF Talk” training series for a deep dive into the financial and practical implementation of economic development deals. Hosted by the Village of Hazel Crest, this session features Ancel Glink’s David Silverman, Michio Murakishi (Meech Group), and Terri Cox (Matanky Realty Group).

Building on the structural overview provided in Quorum Forum 97:  Anatomy of a Redevelopment Agreement, the panel explores how municipalities can use RDAs to bridge financial gaps and ensure projects are feasible for developers while protecting the public interest.

Highlights:

• The Math of Incentives: Understanding Internal Rate of Return (IRR), yield on cost, and how consultants use gap analysis to size incentives.
• The “But For” Test:  A look at the legal and financial necessity of incentives, and the idea that a project would not happen “but for” the public assistance.
• Net Public Benefit:  How to measure the “dividend” of a public investment through tax base growth, job creation, and revitalized storefronts.
• Case Studies from the Trenches:  Terri Cox shares lessons from the Bishop Classic project in Chicago and a $5 million car wash development on Dixie Highway in Harvey.
• Performance-Based Protections:  The importance of clawback provisions, reimbursement schedules, and why the public sector should generally avoid being a landlord.

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 104: Not in My Park!

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 104: Not in My Park!

  Monday, April 06, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

In Quorum Forum Podcast Episode 104: Not in My Park! Regulating Controversial Park Activities, Ancel Glink’s Tyler Smith, Eugene Bolotnikov, and Katie Nagy take the stage at the 2026 IAPD/IPRA Soaring to New Heights Conference. The Ancel Glink "Not In My Park" team discusses the legal complexities of managing potentially controversial activities in public spaces, ranging from the rapid rise of e-bikes and e-scooters to the evolving landscape of public camping regulations and the "noise" issues surrounding pickleball courts. This episode features live audio from their conference session, providing practical strategies for park districts and municipalities to regulate these activities while balancing individual rights and public safety.

Read More

In the Zone: Appellate Court Addresses Annexation Challenge in Solar Farm Case

In the Zone: Appellate Court Addresses Annexation Challenge in Solar Farm Case

  Monday, March 23, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

A company leased property in unincorporated Kane County intending to develop a solar farm. After the company applied for a special use permit from the county, the city council approved a resolution protesting the application and representatives of the city, as well as others, objected to the application at the county ZBA hearing on the application. Ultimately, the county board approved the special use permit, and shortly thereafter, the city adopted an ordinance to forcibly annex the subject property and adjacent parcels. The annexation ordinance stated that the property was "wholly bounded" by the city based on a previous voluntary annexation of railroad property.

The company filed a lawsuit against the City (in quo warranto) claiming that the annexations did not satisfy certain statutory requirements. First, the company argued that the annexation territory was not "wholly bounded" as required by section 7-1-13 of the Illinois Municipal Code because the adjacent ComEd property did not qualify as a "public utility right of way" to satisfy the contiguity exception under the annexation statute. Second, the company argued that the voluntary annexation of the railroad property was a "sham transaction" solely intended to meet the "wholly bounded" requirement of the annexation statute.

The circuit court dismissed the case, finding no deficiencies in either the forcible annexation of the annexation property or the previous voluntary annexation of the railroad property.

The company appealed, and the Appellate Court issued a ruling in RPIL Solar 10, LLC v. City of Aurora, agreeing with the circuit court that the challenge to the voluntary annexation of the railroad property as a "sham" was properly dismissed. However, the Appellate Court overturned the circuit court's dismissal of the company's challenge to the forcible annexation. The Court noted that in order for a municipality to forcibly annex property under section 7-1-13, the property must be "wholly bounded" by one or more municipalities and/or a forest preserve district. The Court acknowledged there were certain exceptions in the statute, including  property that is separated from a city by a public utility right of way, which is what the city relied on in annexing the annexation property. The company responded that because ComEd owned the disputed property in "fee simple," it did not qualify as a public "right of way" under the limited exception. The Appellate Court agreed, finding that a fee simple interest is not the same as a right of way interest under the annexation statute. As a result, the Court held that the company did adequately allege a quo warranto claim to challenge the forcible annexation, and that claim should not have been dismissed by the circuit court. The case was sent back to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Read More

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

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

  Tuesday, March 17, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

Update: This ruling was originally issued as an unpublished opinion but later published and the link has been updated.

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.

Read More

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

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

  Tuesday, March 10, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

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.

Read More

Introduction of BUILD Plan Legislation Proposes Statewide Housing Development Reform

Introduction of BUILD Plan Legislation Proposes Statewide Housing Development Reform

  Monday, March 09, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

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

Read More

In the Zone: Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Village in TIF Dispute with Schools

In the Zone: Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Village in TIF Dispute with Schools

  Thursday, February 19, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

In 2004, a village in Illinois established a tax-increment financing district (TIF #1) to revitalize its town center. In 2021 (6 years before the expiration of TIF #1), the village passed several ordinances to create a new TIF district comprised entirely of parcels of land that were previously included in the original TIF district’s redevelopment area (TIF #2). The majority of the parcels in TIF #2 are owned by a local hospital network, which entered into a redevelopment agreement with the village to increase parking for its facilities and facilitate the development of a mixed-use commercial building. Due to delays in the approval processes, the redevelopment of the hospital site began prior to adoption of the ordinance establishing TIF #2.

Two local school districts filed a lawsuit against the village, claiming that the newly established TIF #2 was invalid because it did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a “conservation area” subject to TIF treatment. The school districts claimed that the ongoing redevelopment activity by the hospital (prior to establishment of TIF #2) showed there was no need for tax-increment financing to spur development. Additionally, the school districts claimed that the process of removing parcels from TIF #1 only to include those same parcels in TIF #2 was an unlawful attempt to extend the 23-year lifespan imposed for TIF districts under the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (Act).

The trial court ruled in favor of the village, finding it adequately established that the area comprising TIF #2 met the minimum criteria to be deemed a “conservation area” eligible for tax-increment financing. More specifically, the trial court determined that the village had shown there was (1) a lack of community planning, (2) a lagging equalized assessed value (EAV) in the proposed TIF #2 area compared with the rest of the village, and (3) deterioration of parcels within the TIF #2 area. The trial court also determined that the de-TIF/re-TIF process of removing parcels from one TIF district to enroll them in another was not prohibited by the Act.

The school districts appealed the trial court’s decision, and the Appellate Court upheld the ruling in favor of the village. On the issue of TIF #2’s designation as a conservation area, the Appellate Court first determined that the village had not erred in finding that the designated area would not reasonably be anticipated to be developed without implementation of TIF #2 and the associated redevelopment plan. While the hospital campus was being actively redeveloped when TIF #2 was established, the Court determined that this activity was clearly supported by the promise of tax-increment financing—in other words, the redevelopment activity and establishment of TIF #2 worked in tandem to stimulate revitalization of the site. The Court further affirmed that the village properly established the 3 eligibility criteria (lack of planning, lagging EAV, and deterioration) to designate TIF #2 as a conservation area.

The Appellate Court also determined that the de-TIF/re-TIF process for the parcels removed from TIF #1 and enrolled in TIF #2 was valid. The Court acknowledged that, to extend the life of a TIF district, municipalities must seek approval from the Illinois General Assembly. However, the Court found TIF #2 was sufficiently distinct from TIF #1, and therefore the de-TIF/re-TIF was not an invalid extension without legislature approval. The Appellate Court observed that nothing prohibits a parcel of land from being placed in a new TIF district after removal from another. Furthermore, the Court noted that the base EAV values had been reset upon the village’s creation of TIF #2, which effectively allowed the other local taxing bodies to receive tax revenue based on EAVs calculated in 2021 rather than 2004. Therefore, the facts and circumstances underlying the creation of TIF #2 did not suggest an unlawful extension of the original TIF #1.

Board of Education of Winfield S.D. 34, et al. v. Village of Winfield

Post Authored by Erin Monforti, Ancel Glink

Read More