Medponics Ill., LLC v. Dep't of Agric.
| Decision Date | 20 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 125443 |
| Citation | 2021 IL 125443,183 N.E.3d 79,451 Ill.Dec. 33 |
| Parties | MEDPONICS ILLINOIS, LLC, Appellant, v. The DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Melissa A. Murphy-Petros and Kathleen McDonough, of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, of Chicago, for appellant.
William F. Moran III, of Stratton, Moran, Reichert, Sronce & Appleton, of Springfield, for appellee Curative Health Cultivation, LLC.
Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Bridget DiBattista, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for other appellees.
¶ 1 The issue in this case involves certain provisions of the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act (Act) ( 410 ILCS 130/1 et seq. (West 2014)) and the correlating rules adopted by the Illinois Department of Agriculture (Administrative Rules) governing its enforcement of the relevant provisions of the Act (see 8 Ill. Adm. Code 1000; 410 ILCS 130/15(b) (West 2014)) and how those impact the propriety of the proposed location of a medical cannabis cultivation center in conjunction with the zoning of two districts within the city of Aurora, Illinois.
¶ 2 Plaintiff, Medponics Illinois, LLC (Medponics), petitioned for administrative review of the decision of defendants, the Department of Agriculture, Director of Agriculture Raymond Poe, and the Department of Agriculture's chief of medicinal plants, Jack Campbell (collectively DOA), awarding a permit to defendant Curative Health Cultivation, LLC (Curative), to operate a medical cannabis cultivation center in Aurora, Illinois. The circuit court of Lake County reversed the DOA's decision. Defendants the DOA and Curative appealed. The appellate court reversed and ordered the permit reinstated to Curative. We allowed Medponics’ petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019). For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court, reverse the judgment of the circuit court, and affirm the decision of the Department of Agriculture.
¶ 4 The Act took effect on January 1, 2014. 410 ILCS 130/999 (West 2014). The Act recognizes medical research that confirms the benefits of using cannabis in treating or alleviating symptoms associated with several incapacitating medical diagnoses. Id. § 5(a). The express purpose of the Act is "to protect patients with debilitating medical conditions, as well as their physicians and providers, from arrest and prosecution, criminal and other penalties, and property forfeiture if patients engage in the medical use of cannabis." Id. § 5(g).
¶ 5 The Act defines a "cultivation center" as "a facility operated by an organization or business that is registered by the [DOA] to perform necessary activities to provide only registered medical cannabis dispensing organizations with usable medical cannabis." Id. § 10(e). The DOA is charged with enforcing the provisions of the Act related to registering and overseeing medical cannabis cultivation centers. Id. § 15(b). Pursuant to that obligation, the Act directed the DOA to establish the Administrative Rules. Id. § 165(a). Effective July 25, 2014, the DOA adopted the Administrative Rules, governing its enforcement of the relevant provisions of the Act. See 38 Ill. Reg. 16732 (eff. July 25, 2014).
¶ 6 Section 105 of the Act sets forth, inter alia , requirements of and restrictions on medical cannabis cultivation centers. 410 ILCS 130/105 (West 2014). Pertinent here, section 105(c) of the Act provides that cultivation centers "may not be located within 2,500 feet of *** an area zoned for residential use." Id. § 105(c). The Act does not provide a definition for "area zoned for residential use." See id. § 10. However, in the Administrative Rules, the DOA defines "[a]rea zoned for residential use" as an "area zoned exclusively for residential use." (Emphasis added.) 8 Ill. Adm. Code 1000.10 (2014).
¶ 7 The Act charges the DOA with issuing medical cannabis cultivation center permits. 410 ILCS 130/85 (West 2014). As part of the cultivation center permit application process, the Administrative Rules require applicants to submit "[a] copy of the current local zoning ordinance to the [DOA] and verification from the local zoning authority that the proposed cultivation center is in compliance with the local zoning rules issued in accordance with Section 140 of the Act." 8 Ill. Adm. Code 1000.100(d)(17) (2015). Applicants must further submit a map of the area surrounding the proposed cultivation center that demonstrates that the proposed location is not located within 2500 feet of the property line of an area zoned for residential use ( 8 Ill. Adm. Code 1000.100(d)(19) (2015) ), which the Administrative Rules indicate is an area zoned exclusively for residential use ( 8 Ill. Adm. Code 1000.10 (2014) ).
¶ 8 The Administrative Rules provide that the DOA may award only one cultivation center permit in each of the 22 Illinois State Police (ISP) districts. 8 Ill. Adm. Code 1000.110(f) (2015). Applicants vying for a permit in the same ISP district are judged by means of a competitive scoring system and receive points in several different categories as set forth in the Administrative Rules. 8 Ill. Adm. Code 110(b), (c) (2015). The highest scoring qualified applicant is awarded the permit in the ISP district in which it applied. 8 Ill. Adm. Code 110(f)(1) (2015).
¶ 9 In September 2014, Medponics and Curative both submitted applications to the DOA for the medical cannabis cultivation center permit award in ISP District 2. Medponics sought to operate a cultivation center in Zion, Illinois, and Curative sought to operate a cultivation center in Aurora, Illinois.
¶ 10 On October 14, 2014, Curative filed a special use petition with the City of Aurora, seeking authorization to use its proposed location as a medical cannabis cultivation center. On November 5, 2014, upon referral of Curative's special use petition by the Aurora City Council, the Aurora Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and found the petition met the standards of the Aurora Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance), recommended conditional approval of the special use, and granted the special use permit to Curative, subject to conditions involving landscaping on the property and review of the petition documents in the event a state license was issued for the subject property. On November 6, 2014, the Aurora Planning and Development Committee conducted a special meeting and recommended approval of Curative's special use permit.
¶ 11 On November 18, 2014, a city ordinance was passed and approved, granting Curative a special use permit for a medical cannabis cultivation center on the property. City of Aurora Ordinance No. O14-068 (eff. Nov. 18, 2014). The ordinance indicates that the location of the proposed cultivation center is zoned as "M-2(S) Manufacturing—General." Id.
¶ 12 On April 29, 2015, the zoning administrator for the City of Aurora sent a letter to the DOA's general counsel, regarding "Aurora Non-‘Exclusively Residential’ Zoning [N]ear Curative Health Cultivation, LLC at 2229 Diehl Road, Aurora, Illinois." The letter advised that the location of Curative's proposed cultivation center was not within 2500 feet of any area zoned exclusively for residential use for purposes of the Act because the Zoning Ordinance allows special use permits for uses other than residential in residential districts, including the R-1 and R-5 districts. The letter referenced a "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) document located on the DOA website dated February 18, 2015, which addressed the issue as follows:
¶ 13 On October 30, 2015, the DOA awarded the cultivation center permit to Curative and notified Medponics in a letter that its permit application was denied. Of all permit applicants in ISP District 2, Curative finished first in scoring, while Medponics finished fifth. Medponics was the only applicant to challenge the DOA's decision to award the permit to Curative.
¶ 14 The operative complaint in this case—a verified, second-amended complaint for administrative review—was filed on February 24, 2017. Pursuant to the second-amended complaint, Medponics alleged, inter alia , that it submitted to the DOA an application for a permit to operate a medical cannabis cultivation center in Zion, Illinois—located within ISP District 2—but the DOA deemed Curative as the highest scoring applicant in ISP District 2. Accordingly, the DOA awarded Curative the cultivation center permit and advised Medponics that its application was denied. Medponics alleged that Curative's application contained a fatal, disqualifying flaw, namely that the proposed location of Curative's cultivation center was "well within 2,500 feet of multiple properties zoned as exclusively residential in Aurora, Illinois," in violation of section 105(c) of the Act. See 410 ILCS 130/105(c) (West 2014).
¶ 15 Medponics alleged that the location of Curative's proposed cultivation center violated the Act because it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crecos v. Crecos
...we reverse the appellate court's decision, dismissing Gregory's appeal based upon lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the 183 N.E.3d 79451 Ill.Dec. 33 appellate court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.¶ 49 Appellate court judgment reversed.¶ 50 Cause remanded.¶ 5......
-
People ex rel. Alvarez v. $59,914 U.S. Currency
...answer to that question. Whether a judgment is void is a question of law that this court will review de novo. Medponics Illinois, LLC v. Department of Agriculture , 2021 IL 125443, ¶ 29, 451 Ill.Dec. 33, 183 N.E.3d 79. Where jurisdiction is lacking, any resulting judgment is rendered void a......
-
Cook Cnty. Sch. Dist. 130 v. Ill. Educ. Labor Relations Bd.
...interpretation of its own statute unless it is erroneous, unreasonable, or conflicts with the statute. Medponics Illinois, LLC v. Department of Agriculture , 2021 IL 125443, ¶ 31, 451 Ill.Dec. 33, 183 N.E.3d 79 (citing Hadley v. Illinois Department of Corrections , 224 Ill. 2d 365, 371, 309......