Rules committee backs changes to appeals process for property development with limited amendment

The Rules and Government Committee voted to give a favorable recommendation, as amended, to O 03/2024, an ordinance sponsored by Alderman Gay and co-sponsored by other councilmembers that would change the city's appeals process for property development decisions to reduce delay caused by repetitive or nuisance litigation.

The measure aims to curb tactics that can hold projects up, sponsors said. Alderman Shanimire said the ordinance "takes the teeth out of nuisance suits that just add time cost and can kill good projects through pointless litigation." The committee discussed multiple technical edits and two recommendations from the Board of Appeals to adjust timing in the proposed code language.

Why it matters: The ordinance addresses a recurring concern from developers and some council members that protracted appeals and repeated filings can stall housing and infrastructure projects. Supporters framed the changes as procedural safeguards to improve predictability; opponents said changes would not affect circuit-court litigation and could miss the larger causes of delay.

Key details: Committee members debated a provision that would require notice of an appeal be provided to the director of planning and zoning five days before the appeal is filed with the circuit court; the Office of Law and the planning director told the committee the notice requirement is procedural and would not strip appellants of court rights. Jessica Carace, an attorney in the Office of Law, explained the difference between a stop-work order and an automatic stay from the code: "A stop work order is different than a stay," Carace said. "A stop work order would be issued typically by the Department of Planning and Zoning; a stay is not actually, like, a concrete piece of paper that was issued."

The Board of Appeals asked two main changes: (1) the 45-day deadline for the board to issue a decision should run from the date the director designates the record; and (2) the board should have 40 days from the last hearing to reach and announce its decision. The committee accepted an amendment inserting the Board of Appeals' request that the 45-day clock run from the date the director designates the record, but members discussed safeguards where the record remains in dispute. The city attorney said the board may need an internal rule limiting back-and-forth over the record so that appeals do not stall indefinitely.

Dissent and limits: At least one committee member announced a vote against the favorable recommendation, arguing the ordinance "is barking up the wrong tree" and that most delay occurs earlier in the permitting process or in circuit court where the city has no control. That member said the legislation represented "one bite" of a larger problem and preferred broader reforms to the permitting system.

Outcome and next steps: The committee voted to recommend O 03/2024 favorably as amended. Committee members directed staff to incorporate the Board of Appeals language (45 days from designation of the record; 40 days from last hearing for deliberations) and to return final drafting for council introduction. The committee also received and discussed comments from the Planning Commission and deferred any Planning Commission-suggested changes that would expand stays beyond the scope of this ordinance.

Ending note: The committee framed the ordinance as a procedural improvement aimed at cutting avoidable project delays, while several members said further work will be needed across city permitting processes to address longer-term sources of delay.