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.
