Tag: Chicago zoning committee

Three ordinances would decide whether Chicago’s lowest-cost housing gets easier or harder to build

Three ordinances introduced at City Council in the last four weeks would change the zoning rules for single room occupancy (SRO) buildings, shelters, and community homes. One of them makes it easier to build these kinds of housing. The other two ordinances would add new requirements that would make it more expensive to build them, extend approval timelines, and reduce the number of eligible locations for building them.

The ordinances arrive during a housing shortage that is most severe at the bottom of the market but only one would make a positive impact. Let’s review the latest information on housing supply in Chicago:

  • The Chicago metro area is short about 224,000 rental homes that are affordable and available to extremely low-income renters (households earning 30 percent or less of the area median income, or $25,200 for one person), according to a March 2026 report from Housing Action Illinois and the National Low Income Housing Coalition.There are only 31 such homes for every 100 of those households.
  • Chicago permitted 3,916 new homes in 2025, last among U.S. jurisdictions with at least a million residents, according to Census Bureau building permit data.
  • The city’s point-in-time count on January 22, 2026, found about 6,527 people who are staying in shelters or outside, down 12 percent from 2025 but near an all-time high.
  • The number of people sleeping outside rose almost 25 percent, to about 1,641, even though the count happened on one of the coldest nights in recent memory.
  • People are sleeping in parks and under viaducts. For several years, news media have reported on tent encampments along the North Branch of the Chicago River and in Ronan Park in Albany Park, and the city cleared one at Legion Park in March after two fires there. At Gompers Park in North Mayfair, the city matched about 30 encampment residents with housing at a March 2025 “Accelerated Moving Event.” The Park District removed the remaining tents in May 2025 to build a nature play space, and many of the people still living there moved across the street to Eugene Field Park. Park District Superintendent Carlos Ramirez-Rosa has said there are about 60 encampments in the city, mostly in parks, that residents of a cleared encampment generally move to another park, and that Chicago lacks enough housing for people experiencing street homelessness.
  • In the 34th Ward, people set up tents under the Metra viaducts on Lake Street near Clinton Street, next to Ogilvie Transportation Center. When the city cleared that encampment in December 2023, seven people accepted rehousing help from the Department of Family and Support Services and 15 declined. Ald. Bill Conway said at the time that many might return.

The three ordinances take different approaches in light of the situation.

  • Ald. Anthony Quezada’s ordinance would allow SROs and shelters by right on most commercial streets and downtown.
  • Ald. Pat Dowell’s would require a special use hearing for any new SRO in a residential district, when currently that is not required.
  • Ald. Ronnie Mosley’s would add new notification requirements for community homes, transitional residences, and transitional shelters, as well as minimum spacing rules between existing and new uses in those categories. This ordinance would drastically reduce the number of eligible locations for these housing types.
OrdinanceSponsorIntroducedWhat it does
O2026-0029459Ald. Anthony Quezada (35th Ward) + 11 othersOctober 14, 2026Allows SROs and shelters by right in most business, commercial, and downtown districts
O2026-0027579Ald. Pat Dowell (3rd Ward)September 23, 2026Requires a special use for new SROs in RT-4 and all RM districts, when currently that is not required
O2026-0029477Ald. Ronnie Mosley (21st Ward) + 30 othersOctober 14, 2026Adds 1,000-foot spacing rules, notifying the local alderperson and police district commander, as well as a bigger notice radius to property owners for proposed community homes, transitional residences, and transitional shelters

A quick glossary

The zoning code has its own vocabulary for these housing types, so here’s what each one means in plain language:

  • Single room occupancy (SRO): a building of small, private rooms, often with shared kitchens or bathrooms. Historically these were residential hotels and for young men moving to the city for the first time looking for work.
  • Temporary overnight shelter and transitional shelter: places for people experiencing homelessness to sleep, either night-to-night or for a longer stay while they find permanent housing.
  • Transitional residence: a temporary, supervised living arrangement, such as housing for people undergoing substance use treatment or reentering society after being incarcerated.
  • Community home: a group home where people with disabilities live together as one household, sometimes with staff. A “family” community home is smaller; a “group” community home is larger.
  • Special use: a use the zoning code doesn’t allow by right. The applicant has to notify owners of nearby property owners, hire (usually) an attorney, and win approval at a public hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

It’s the experience of every person or organization who has to obtain a special use that their project costs more, is approved later than expected, requires hiring consultants, and pays additional city application fees. These applicants are constantly working under the possibility of being denied after the applicant has already bought or leased the property.

For these types of housing, specifically, applicants and the people who they would house are often subjected to vile NIMBYism and bigotry during this process. Housing delayed is housing denied.

Quezada’s ordinance: SROs and shelters by right in business and downtown districts

Ald. Quezada’s ordinance, co-sponsored by 11 colleagues, would expand where SROs and shelters are allowed without having to get a special use, to the business, commercial, and downtown zoning districts. B and C districts line most of Chicago’s commercial streets, often near transit. D districts are only in downtown, including River North, South Loop, and part of West Loop.

UseDistricts going from special use to permitted
Single room occupancyB1, B3, C1, C2, DC, DX (already permitted in B2 and DR)
Temporary overnight shelterB1, B2, B3, C1, C2, C3, DX, DR
Transitional shelterB1, B2, B3, C1, C2, C3, DX, DR
Transitional residenceNo change; still a special use

Dowell’s ordinance: special use for SROs in residential districts

Ald. Dowell’s ordinance would amend one line in the zoning code’s residential use table (Section 17-2-0207). Today, SROs are permitted by right in RT-4, RM-4.5, RM-5, RM-5.5, RM-6, and RM-6.5 districts. The ordinance strikes the “P” and replaces it with “S” in all six, which would thus require new SROs and some renovations of existing SROs to obtain costly special use approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Those districts are where Chicago allows apartments and condo buildings. (SROs already aren’t allowed in districts that mandate detached single family housing and don’t allow multifamily housing.) There would be no residential district in Chicago where someone can build an SRO with only a building permit.

This doesn’t change the city’s 2014 SRO Preservation Ordinance, which protects existing SRO tenants when a building is sold or converted.

Mosley’s ordinance: spacing, notification, and a bigger notice radius

Ald. Mosley’s ordinance has 30 co-sponsors, including Ald. Dowell. It adds four new requirements:

  1. 1,000-foot spacing for community homes. A community home would be prohibited within 1,000 feet of another community home (new 17-9-0104.2).
  2. 1,000-foot spacing for transitional residences and shelters. Either one would be prohibited within 1,000 feet of another transitional residence or transitional shelter (new 17-9-0115-E).
  3. Notification before opening. Community homes that are permitted by right, and therefore don’t need a special use, would still have to notify the alderman’s office at least 30 days before they start operating (new 17-9-0104.1). Transitional residences and shelters would have to notify the Chicago Police Department district commander when they file for a special use (new 17-9-0115-D).
  4. Four times the notice radius. Special use applications for community homes, transitional residences, or transitional shelters would have to mail notice to every property owner within 1,000 feet, instead of the standard 250 feet. That’s twice the 500-foot radius the code requires for landfills, incinerators, and waste transfer stations.

A 1,000-foot radius is about a block and a half in every direction (a standard Chicago block is 660 feet). Mailing to every owner in that circle costs more and reaches more people. The spacing rules mean that once one group home or shelter opens, the surrounding area is off-limits to the next one. And the proposed ordinance offers no variation or other relief from the 1,000-foot spacing rules. This increases the number of letters that have to be sent by about seven times.

It’s my understanding that community homes house people with disabilities, and the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits zoning rules that discriminate against them. Spacing rules for group homes have been challenged before. In 1996, a federal appeals court ruled that the Fair Housing Act preempts Michigan’s spacing and notice requirements for adult foster care homes, which included a review of similar facilities within 1,500 feet (Larkin v. Michigan Department of Social Services). Other court rulings have found that refusing an exception, or reasonable accommodation, from spacing requirements violates the law. In 2022, a federal jury ordered Springfield, Illinois, to pay $293,000 after the city tried to close a group home under its 600-foot spacing ordinance.

What the Metropolitan Planning Council recommends

The Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) published At What Cost?, an honest assessment of Chicago’s zoning and land use regulations, earlier this month, after a three-year study that gathered input from more than 700 people (including yours truly). Timing between their report and the three proposed ordinances is coincidental!

MPC recommends removing the requirement that “single-room occupancy buildings, shelters, and other group living quarters” get special use approval in many zoning districts, because it “delays or blocks a necessary housing option.” More broadly, MPC recommends permitting most current special uses by right, with use standards, and reserving Zoning Board of Appeals review for uses with likely health and safety impacts, such as heavy manufacturing, waste processing, and adult uses. MPC’s analysis of ZBA decisions from 2011 to 2023 found that the board approves 92 percent of applications and explicitly denies only 3 to 4 percent, but that the process is complex and lengthy, often requires an attorney, and depends heavily on the local alderperson’s support.

Ald. Fuentes: “Additional dwelling units historically in the city of Chicago have been naturally occurring affordable units for our families”

26th Ward Alderperson Jessie Fuentes responded to 9th Ward Alderperson Anthony Beal at the July 15, 2025, meeting of the Chicago Committee on Zoning, Landmarks, and Building Standards, and added her own perspective on why ADUs are important for families. The text of her statement is below.

The committee voted to approve the citywide ADUs ordinance but it was deferred and published the following day during the City Council meeting.

First and foremost, you know I have to correct the record. Every body of research and data will tell you the immigrants pay taxes and the city of Chicago and any other city that they live in. In fact, we won’t even, we won’t be able to build our city without immigrants.

Now for the reason that we’re here. ’cause it’s not about migrants, immigrants not paying taxes, it’s about housing. And we had a housing shortage well before migrants arrived to the city of Chicago. And it is because there is so much red tape around development, around adding units and around bringing affordability to our communities.

That’s not some sort of, like, tall tale story. It’s a reality that many of our communities experience whether you are representing Wrigleyville, whether you’re representing Hermosa, whether you’re representing Humboldt Park or any other community across the city of Chicago.

The reality is, is that there’s a lot of red tape that small landlords in particular have to jump through just to be able to provide units for our community. Additional dwelling units historically in the city of Chicago have been naturally occurring affordable units for our families.

Often when people are creating basements, attics, or whether that’s a coach house in the back of their yard, they’re doing so for relatives, for friends so that they could keep them close. Or for a neighbor that may not be able to afford a market rate unit in our community.

Landlords shouldn’t have to go through so many different loopholes or to be in favor with their alderperson to be able to add a unit for a family to live in. And so I’m okay with letting go some of control because I didn’t come to be an elected official to keep control of every problem in my ward.

I came to be a representative of the people and people in my community, in the 26th Ward, are telling me every single day that they can’t afford to live in my community because of the increase in rent, the astronomical increases that we see in property taxes.

The type of rapid gentrification that we are seeing in communities like mine is a form of violence. When you displace people the way families in my community have been displaced, you have to be able to look at the toolbox to say, what tools am I gonna add here so that I can preserve families in my community?

For me that means making sure we tack on fees for the demolition and deconversions, that tenants have the right of first refusal and that homeowners and building owners have the opportunity to add additional dwelling units if that’s what’s gonna keep people in place.

And so today I’ll be voting yes on this ordinance. Thank you, chairman. Thank you.

The transcript above was automatically generated by Vimeo AI and edited by me.

ADUs passes the Chicago zoning committee, City Council comes next

Update 1: Alderpersons Quinn and Mitchell “deferred and published” the ADU ordinance on Wednesday, July 16, 2025, which means it was not voted on and must be taken up again at a future City Council meeting.

Update 2: Help get the ordinance over the finish line on September 25, 2025. I made a list of events and actions and everyone can contribute something.

The Chicago City Council zoning committee voted to approve citywide accessory dwelling units (ADUs). I was sick this morning and late to the meeting so I couldn’t sign up for the public comment roster. My planned comment is at the end of this post.

The most substantial change from the last proposal (circa May 2024) is that ADUs will be allowed in residential buildings in all zoning districts subject to the following caps:

  • RS-1: one ADU permit per block (both sides of the street) per year
  • RS-2: two…
  • R3-3: three…
  • Other zoning districts: no cap

There is also an owner occupancy requirement, to be proved at the time of permit application, to build an ADU in the RS zoning districts. The version text that passed is not yet available online, but it will be posted under ordinance SO2024-0008918.

Read WTTW’s report on what alderpersons said about ADUs, including the despicable comments about migrants by one of them.

The full City Council will vote on this ordinance tomorrow; I think it will pass by one or two votes. The lists below shows how committee members voted, approving it 13 to 7 (with all zoning committee members present).

Yes on ADUs:

  • La Spata
  • Hall
  • Ramirez
  • Sigcho-Lopez
  • Fuentes
  • Burnett
  • Cruz
  • Conway
  • Quezada
  • Villegas
  • Knudsen
  • Clay
  • Lawson

No on ADUs:

  • Hopkins
  • Dowell
  • Harris
  • Beale
  • Moore
  • Mosley
  • Reilly

Public comment

Hi my name is Steven Vance. I live in the 34th Ward and I’m a volunteer member of Abundant Housing Illinois. Today is a test for the Committee on Zoning. Alderperson Lawson and Mayor Johnson have presented a new version of allowing accessory dwelling units, including coach houses and other types of ADUs, for your favorable vote.  The test is whether this body will recognize the mounting evidence of a housing crisis in Chicago and adopt ordinances that will more quickly chip away at the housing shortage.

The most glaring problem, measured by national researchers, is that Chicago’s rents are climbing faster than in any of the other top 50 metropolitan areas, and for sale inventory is so low that houses sell in days at prices tens of thousands of dollars over asking. “Sounds good” for the individual owners and sellers, respectively, but it’s bad for everyone else. 

The city’s housing department staff know what is known nationally: that ADUs are one of the most sensible and impactful ways to increase housing options and reduce rents. With the ADU ordinance before you today Chicago would join Los Angeles, New York City, Boston, and Austin, cities where ADUs have been legal since before the pilot began. 

To those alders who sometimes or often disagree with Mayor Johnson’s agenda, consider that allowing ADUs across Chicago was first proposed by Mayor Emanuel in his administration’s final five-year housing plan back in 2019, and that it was during Mayor Lightfoot’s administration that the council started the three-year pilot program. 

To those who worry that ADUs bring in more children to the neighborhood who might crowd schools, consider that across the city enrollment in public schools is declining and more families and children staying in the city would be a blessing. Mayor Johnson’s amendment considered this by capping the number of ADUs that can be built on each block. 

I’m given two minutes so I can’t address every concern, but this committee has had plenty of time to address the concern of Chicagoans: the Chicagoans whose rents are rising too fast for them to afford, and who are having to move every year in search of a cheaper place away from their friends, family, and jobs. The ADU pilot program has brought 100s of new homes online in the last four years without any subsidy from the city. More ADUs means more homes for families to care for someone else: a grandparent staying nearby to care for a newborn, an adult child starting a new family near their parents, and seniors who would age in place by downsizing into a smaller home on their own property or down the street. Vote yes and pass the test. 

ADUs in Chicago: it’s the 4-year anniversary of a 3-year pilot program

My prepared remarks spoken to the Chicago City Council’s Committee on Zoning, Landmarks, and Building Standards on May 21, 2025.

Hi, my name is Steven Vance, I’m a 34th ward resident and a member of Abundant Housing Illinois, a group whose members show up to advocate for approving new housing. I wanted to speak today to support the expansion of the city’s ADU pilot program into a permanent and citywide option. 

This month is the four year anniversary of the beginning of a three-year ADU pilot program. 

A year ago, in June, just after the three year anniversary, the department of housing fulfilled their obligation and presented their findings and recommendations. They recommended to expand it citywide. 

Two years ago, a year before the department’s recommendations, newly elected Alderprerson Lawson introduced an ordinance that would do just that. To my recollection, the zoning committee has substantially discussed that ordinance only once. 

During the last four years, nearly 400 ADU homes have been permitted by the Department of buildings, and hundreds of those homes have been built. Homeowners and other property owners have been able to build homes for their parents, friends, and as rental units to earn more household income. None of the ADUs are allowed to be used for Airbnb or other short term rentals. 

Chicago was recently recognized as a national leader…in rent increases. Allowing more homes, including in the form of accessory dwelling units, is a way to suppress the rate at which rents rise. In some cases, including this year in Austin, Texas, Minneapolis, and Denver, so many new homes were built that rents started falling. 

I urge the zoning committee to adopt an ordinance to allow ADUs citywide. Thank you. 

Brian and his wife built a coach house in 2023, pursuant to the ADU pilot program, so their newborn child’s grandma could live close to home and help babysit.

How the Connected Communities ordinance prevents new development approval from languishing by forcing a vote

I want to clear up confusion about how the inclusionary application process, included in the Connected Communities ordinance that took effect in June 20221, works to prevent new proposed projects from languishing in City Council.

It does not bypass alderperson prerogative, the custom of every alderperson supporting and going along with every other alderperson’s support or disapproval of a proposed project.

The inclusionary application process forces a vote for a proposed project that meets certain requirements. Sterling Bay is in the middle of this process, the first time the process has been activated, for their proposed project at 1840 N Marcey St, which would have 615 homes in place of a one-story office building.

How the process should work

An “inclusionary application” is a project that’s proposed to be approved as either a Planned Development or Type 12 and meets these requirements:

must meet these requirements:

  • it has a residential or mixed-residential use
  • the location is in an “inclusionary housing” area3
  • the location is in a transit-served location4
  • either that the full portion of ARO units is provided on-site (20 percent of all units) or that 20 percent or more of the units are affordable via some other agreement or code5
  • it has been approved by Plan Commission
  • a public meeting is held, in the ward of the proposed project, to explain the proposal and solicit comments

The Zoning Administrator and the Chicago Department of Housing Commission must concur that the proposed project meets those requirements6. Another requirement is that City Council’s zoning committee has not voted on it within 300 days of Plan Commission approval.

Chicago Plan Commission approved the 1840 N Marcey St proposed project on June 20, 2024. To stay in the approval process, zoning committee needs to not vote on the project before April 16, 2025 (300 days later).

However, and this is important, the zoning committee can take up the matter before that time and vote to approve or deny it. An approval would mean the project goes to City Council for approval or denial and concludes the inclusionary application process.

After that 300 day period elapses and the zoning committee has not voted on the proposed project, the applicant can submit written notification to the zoning committee chair to request that the committee act on the applicant’s inclusionary application. A clock starts. There are three outcomes at the end of 60 days:

  1. zoning committee has voted and did not approve the proposed project
  2. zoning committee has voted and approved the proposed project (a “do pass” recommendation)
  3. zoning committee does not vote on the project and reports a “do pass” (approve) recommendation to City Council – this is the key part, the “shot clock”, of how the Connected Communities can ensure that a compliant residential project’s zoning change application doesn’t languish in City Council.

If it’s approved via #2 or #3, it proceeds to City Council which still vote on the project. And they can approve or disapprove it; there is no bypassing zoning committee or bypassing City Council.

Typically at City Council meetings, the Council votes on a motion that approves, in a single vote, all of the zoning change applications that the zoning committee approved (a.k.a. those proposed projects that have a “do pass” recommendation). If that happens, then the project has been approved by City Council.

But an alderperson could make a motion to vote on zoning change applications separately, and pull this proposed project out of the group. This is when alderperson prerogative might come out to play, and 26 or more alderpersons may go along with the alderperson of the ward where the project is located and who doesn’t support the proposed project, and the proposed project/zoning change application is killed.

It’s also when 26 or more alderpersons can make choices on behalf of the city and not on behalf of a discriminatory practice and vote to approve the project.

Notes

  1. The inclusionary application process may have been added in part to avoid future lawsuits against the city when City Council allows a zoning change application to be deferred indefinitely (the languishing part of this article’s headline). Glenstar sued the City of Chicago after City Council let the proposed apartments at 8535 W Higgins Ave languish. ↩︎
  2. A “type 1 zoning map amendment” changes the zoning district and obligates the property owner to build what meets the zoning district’s standards and what is described in their zoning change application. Contrast this with a “type 2 zoning map amendment” which allows anything to be built that meets the standards of the zoning district. ↩︎
  3. An inclusionary area means a high-income area with a low amount of affordable housing and is considered, informally, not to be in a gentrifying process. See the ARO map on Chicago Cityscape. ↩︎
  4. The proposed project is within 2,640 feet of a CTA or Metra rail station entrance or exit or within 1,320 feet of a CTA bus line corridor roadway segment listed in Table 17-17-0400-B. ↩︎
  5. The code says, “20% or more of the on-site dwelling units are subject to recorded covenant, lien, regulatory agreement, deed restriction, or similar instrument approved by the Department of Housing”. ↩︎
  6. See the full code starting at 17-13-0608 and going through 17-13-0608-B. ↩︎