Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Village staff recommends revoking special‑use permit for 8863 Ogden Avenue; trustees debate legal and practical effects
Summary
Village staff and the village attorney told trustees that the special‑use permit allowing a cannabis dispensary at 8863 Ogden Ave. was tied to the original applicant and ownership changed; staff recommends revocation so future applicants can be evaluated on current conditions. Trustees discussed whether revocation would speed or slow redevelopment and noted ongoing code violations at the property.
Village staff recommended that the Village Board revoke the special‑use permit for a cannabis dispensary at 8863 Ogden Avenue, telling the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 23 that the permit’s conditions were tailored to the original applicant and the property’s ownership has changed.
Libby Popovic, the village’s economic development coordinator, said the petition to revoke the special use was brought by the village after the original applicant (referred to in the record as the "19 37 group") ceased involvement and the current property owner, Sri Properties LLC (agent Chris Patel), has not submitted a compliant application or followed through with a voluntary relinquishment. Popovic said staff has not received new applications and that the property has outstanding code violations; some payments for judgments have been received and another adjudication date is scheduled in March.
Village attorney Adam advised trustees that revocation would "clean the slate" by removing a permit that had conditions specifically tied to the original applicant, allowing the board and planning commission to review any new cannabis‑related application under terms appropriate to a 2026 applicant. Adam noted the village code provides a procedure for rescinding permits and that the 2023 ordinance that approved the prior special use did not include language tying approval to changes in ownership.
Trustees debated the tradeoffs. Some said revocation would restore greater zoning control and let the board vet future applicants; others warned revocation could delay redevelopment by requiring a new special‑use process. Trustee discussion also noted that code enforcement authority remains separate from the special‑use status and that revocation would not change ownership rights: the owner could still develop uses that do not require a special use or could sell the property.
No formal vote on revocation occurred at the Committee of the Whole; staff said it would bring an ordinance forward for board consideration at the next meeting and recommended revocation.
The committee did not take final action at the Feb. 23 meeting; trustees asked staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting the staff recommendation and to return for a formal vote.
