Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Build Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hampshire trustees back draft letter opposing Illinois "BUILD Act" that would limit local zoning control
Summary
Trustees debated sweeping state legislation dubbed the BUILD Act, heard Mayor/President account of regional advocacy, and agreed to circulate a draft letter to MetroWest, the Illinois Municipal League and local legislators expressing concern about the bill’s effect on local land‑use authority.
Hampshire trustees spent the largest portion of their meeting discussing the proposed statewide "BUILD Act," a package of bills the presiding official said would restrict municipal zoning powers and make it easier to site multi‑family units and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in single‑family neighborhoods.
The presiding official led the discussion, saying the bill package would replace local discretion on impact fees, parking and building standards with a statewide formula and that the village — along with other MetroWest municipalities — has met with state staff and legislative leaders to raise concerns. “This Build Act is one of the most destructive pieces of legislation to local control that I’ve seen in my time here,” the presiding official said, arguing the proposals could allow four‑story apartment buildings on small, single‑family lots without minimum parking or plumbing provisions.
Trustees asked staff and one another questions about how the bills would apply in Hampshire, including average lot sizes (trustees noted many local lots are roughly a quarter acre, or ~5,000 square feet) and typical building‑permit response times. Several trustees said their state representative and senator were opposed and that municipal organizations including the Illinois Municipal League (IML) and the mayor’s caucus had expressed concerns. Trustee 6 asked whether the legislature’s “temperature” had shifted; the presiding official summarized outreach that included meetings with Speaker Chris Welch’s office and other state officials.
The board discussed next steps and whether to send a formal letter. The presiding official asked permission to distribute a draft letter to MetroWest, the mayor’s caucus and the IML and to share it with local legislators; trustees expressed support but some asked that letters direct specific technical questions to their state representatives. “Passing a resolution really doesn’t do much,” one trustee said, favoring a concise letter that raises local infrastructure and public‑safety questions.
Action: Trustees agreed to circulate and, if acceptable to the board, send a draft letter of opposition and to provide a distribution list (MetroWest, IML, and local senator/representative) so individual trustees and residents could contact bill sponsors. The board did not vote to adopt a formal resolution opposing the bills during this session; instead they approved moving forward with the draft letter process and outreach.
