exclusively for residential use is clearly erroneous for two specific reasons st the department's interpretation of the wall impermissibly restricts the scope of the statutes location requirements for medical cannabis called the beach and centers under the department's interpretation the phrase exclusively residential in their view does not enco or apply to areas which are zoned exclusively for residential use but allow special use permits i think it's a very safe presumption that of all the municipalities across the state many areas that are zoned exclusively residential under the applicable zoning ordinance allow special use permit that does not change their zoning designation where there is owning map so the way the department is interpret ing its rule is restricting the application of the x location requirement so that it only applies in areas zoned exclusively residential but with no special use permit allowed and certainly there is nothing in the statute that indicates that the statute is not to apply statewide the nd problem with the department's interpretation is that it treats special use permits effectively  as zoning amendments and it's well established and long established i was cited numerous cases are brief on this point that special use permits are not droning amendments they are what they say they are they allow  especially use within a sony district they don't change the zoning district or the zoning designation they don't change the zoning map and this is important because you know people are entitled to rely on their zoning ordinances if for example i purchased a home in aurora are one district which the statute i'm sorry the ordinance side is zoned exclusively residential i'm entitled to rely on that zoning designation and not wind up you know perhaps years later living half a mile from a medical cannabis cultivation center because the department says under its rule all that where i live is not zoned exclusively residential after all the department interpretation by bringing in the desert excuse me the specially used permits is effectively again treating those as a zoning a moment so that areas which are zoned exclusively residential here in the roads are one in our five districts are in fact under their interpretation not exclusively residential at all and that certainly has no basis in the law and is clearly erroneous corps is to give deference to the agency's deterrent determination when a statute is ambiguous and the department's interpretation of the statute is not clearly erroneous here as we e the only logical reasoning reading excuse me of that phrase is that the legislature did not want cultivation signers closer than two thousand five hundred feet away from where people live that's not in the u so there should be no difference even if an argument could be made that that was ambiguous again and as i was just arguing as we set out in our briefs the department's interpretation of its rule is clearly erroneous in that ordinance and that's made very clear i think in the language of the ordinance itself the purpose of the ordinance states that it is to divide the city into distinct zoning use districts among them residential the are one and our five districts are zoned residential they are zoned for one family and multifamily dwellings respectively the ordinance defines residential area as areas to be used exclusively for residential use they differ ordinance defines dwelling as buildings to be used exclusively that word keeps coming up for residential use when i'm asking  exclusively residential and special use permits for non residential uses are allowed that does not change the zoning designation of our one and our five and because the statute and the rule both use the phrase zone for that's a full stop we look at what the zoning ordinance status it's as exclusively residential that's it the availability of special use permits does not change the designation the definition of the word exclusively as the department used in its rule does not change the zoning designation and again you know the folks in the city of aurora i think are very entitled to rely on what the only ordinance size and to have their expectations based accordingly not on the department's unilateral interpretation of its rule that because special use permits are allowed these areas are not exclusively residential even though the ordinance says that they are and finally on that point i would also add that the zoning ordinance states that the purpose of residential districts is to protect residential areas so because residential areas are exclusively residential so too are the districts  i would simply add unless the panel has additional questions that there has been no waivers of our arguments here as curative asserted in its briefs we were the i believe below and raised this in response to the a pollens argument the argument with respect to the zoning i'm sorry the interpretation impermissibly restricting the scope of the statute so that's not been waived it's properly before this rely on the living word case for the definition an explanation of what stossel use permits are and how special use permits to night change zoning maps or districts and they don't change zoning designations under an ordinance so that's the purpose of our reliance because again our view is that when the department is interpreted it's rule as exclusively residential means exclusively residential but no special use permits allowed you know there are effectively treated special use permits as an amendment to the zoning ordinance so that our one in our five are not zoned exclusively residential after all again despite that the statute i'm sorry the ordinance says that they are times the last report we have there are one thousand two hundred and ninety nine municipalities in the state of illinois so we did not conduct an exhaustive research of every ordinance in every of those cities towns and villages curative has pointed out that the village of north bearing ten in its own an ordinance does not allow special use permits in a residential area so but again that goes to the point about restricting where this location center requirement is to apply under the department's interpretation it applies in the village of north barrington but it doesn't apply in the city of aurora and i think it's a very safe presumption that of those nearly  dollars municipalities are or is not the only one that allows especially use permits in exclusively residential areas number two in this instance we're looking at the department of agriculture's interpretation its own regulation concerning in areas own exclusively for residential use if you look at the statute the statute says two thousand five hundred feet from an area zone for residential use but there is no definition whatsoever of what that term residential use means pursu to the authority in the statute the promulgated rules related to its duties under the statute the department of agriculture promulgated this rule that states an area zone exclusively for residential use in this instance this case has an unusual subject matter i'm sure heard a lot of us never would have believed that we would be talking about marijuana on the legal side of the ledger while standing in this great court that being stated we have to remember that this is really just a run of the mill administrative review proceeding where deference is provided before the circuit court the circuit court judge found that a mixed question of law and fact was presented and that's how he decided t arbitrary on reasonable or inconsistent with past interpretations of that rule or statute here we don't have any past interpretations in other words there has to be a firm conviction that what the department did in this situation was wrong looking at the facts in this record we don't believe that the court can conclude that was inappropriate if the decision of the agency is found to be defensible in any manner that decision has to be affirm in this case met panix keeps on talking about our one in our five and labels flows as exclusively residential just because of the name in other words what they're saying if a municipality label something i want to or are five no matter what can be placed in that area that's exclusively residential we don't believe that that's the appropriate analysis in this case we believe the appropriate announces is to look at what the zoning requires in this case if you look at the act in its legislative findings the only purpose stated there is to help people patients with debilitating medical issues with medicine that can help them there's nothing about zoning there there is another section where the legislature will choir that for one of these permits to be issued that the local zoning board had to approve the location of that cultivation center at the place where the applicant was going to put the son in this instance if you look at what actually happened the city of aurora passed an ordinance that said we are going to allow cultivation centers in our municipality but we're only go under the ordinance to place their cultivation center in an already existing industrial park with other factories manufacturers warehouses in this case you have to understand what these cultivations are about what they look like because we could drive by one of them one hundred times and not know what they are these are warehouses there's no windows there are no green houses where people can see the product there are no products that are growing outside when you go inside there are health air filtration systems to make sure that no noxious smells escape the premises there's unbelievable security two hundred and forty seven cameras that are required you can't walk into one of these facilities unless you have a state issue license or you have special permission from the department no signs whatsoever about what's in that facility the products are not loaded outside into trucks there have to be in close bays where the products are transferred inside and therefore these facilities are as innocuous as possible in this instance with that knowledge my client applied in it's clear that the city of aurora took this very seriously he request for the special use in this case was published there was hearing there was a planning commission perceiving were recommended that this be approved there it went to a city council where again it was published there was public debate about this in the city council voted nine dollars to three dollars in this instance the statute worked exactly as it was designed and that is to allow the people of the city of aurora to decide what went in to their community and how it went into the community as fire is our one and our five districts the appellate court called it a litany of different things that were allowed but literally in these districts there can be airport train stations wastewater treatment facilities hospitals universities trade schools social service agencies all in this area it was clear that aurora looked at that and said these two things can co exist in fact in ordinance that allowed the special use it was a special finding made that the proposed special use will not be detrimental to or in danger  public health safety morals comfort or general welfare will not be injurious as to the use of other property and the immediate facility nor to minish or impair property values in the neighborhood e court upholding the determination of the department for two main reasons st the department's interpretation of its regulation that an area quote zoned exclusively for residential use does not include areas also zoned for nonresidential uses affords the regulation it's plain meaning and therefore should be upheld second that politics has at most proffered an alternative construction of the regulation but it has not shown that the department's interpretation is unreasonable as for this additional reason the department's interpretation should be upheld regarding the st point the department's interpretation of the regulation is that an area no longer is known exclusively for residential use when it permits nonresidential uses this reading affords the language its plain meaning under the plain meaning approach a court gives effect to every term and renders known as the purple s here the department's interpretation gives effect to the term appellate court concluded means solely only to the exclusion of all others the are one in our five districts although zoned as residential districts are not  department has never argued that the are one in our five districts are has never disputed that there is zero and overarching only as residential districts its position is that however once other uses outside of residential uses are permitted it is no longer zoned exclusively for residential use so yes our one and our five are residential districts but they are not exclusively zoned for residential use one so as not residential uses are permitted no panic's also argues that the setback requirement indeed its main argument is that the setback requirement should apply whenever an area is known as a residential district but this reading runs afoul of the plain meaning approach by rendering part of the regulation support for lists specific louis look to the nd sentence of the provision we're looking at here of the regulation it already addresses a situation where it is sufficient for an area to be zoned as a residential district for the setback to requirements to be triggered and that's where the population exceeds two million dollars people if it were the case that the setback requirement is automatically triggered when an area is  interpretation reasonable which for the reasons already stated it should not mechanics is only offered an alternative interpretation this court has held that it will defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulation and  statute unless the interpretation is on reasonable med products raises two arguments to assert the department's interpretation is a reasonable but neither should be adopted by this court st mechanics asserts the department is uses they are no longer zoned exclusively for residential use nd mechanics argues that the setback requirement does not apply statewide it but his argument rests on a premise that if the existing facts ordinance we see that a residential area is defined as a zone unlocked or portion of a zoning not designed or used exclusively for residential purposes however there is a distinct phrase residential district is also used in the ordinance and there is no indication that the term residential area in the ordinance is the same as residential district and indeed when we look to the definition of residential area as defined as ordinance as a plot of ground so again it's a narrow plots zoning lots of grounds not an entire residential district so this court should not be persuaded by the definition of residential area  including this explanation of used exclusively for residential purposes when it is shown that it is referring in that instance to a narrow area and not an overarching large residential district such as our one in our five  you i would like to start with the department's final point that residential districts and residential areas are somehow different under the aurora zoning ordinance they simply are not and  this this argument in fact i think is very illogical by looking if you follow the department's reasoning the residential area definition which includes the phrase zoning law it means that in the city of aurora we have individual lives zoned exclusively residential scattered through the city regardless of what use district they are and whether they're in residential business parks what have you this is counter to the purpose of the aurora zoning ordinance which states specifically that it is to divide the city into particular zoning use districts each with its unique characteristics and development and it's also counter to the ordinances purpose of residential districts which is to protect residential areas if the only residential areas are these individual lots scattered across the city i don't see how anyone can make  plausible argument that these residential districts like our one in our five are able to protect those the logical reading is that residential districts are comprised of residential areas residential areas are zoned exclusively for residential use and therefore apply the setback provision of the act and the wall applies we have cited authority for our position that the department interpretation impermissibly restricts the scope of the location requirement it is this court's decision in hadley versus illinois department of correction which we discussed at length in our opening brief and which the department did not address at all in its response and hadley certainly supports our position that any agency interpretation which restricts the scope of a statute is impermissible clearly erroneous  and cannot stand i think the final point i would like to make barring any further questions is that all of this comes back to the language of the zoning ordinance again every one  whether we are individuals buying homes we are businesses schools what have you we are all entitled to rely on the zoning ordinance in our minas a pallet and what that zoning ordinance sad is here the zoning ordinance says specifically that our one in our five are exclusive the residential that's where we end to allow all the departments interpretation to effectively change that zoning designation through its rule through its interpretation no public input from anyone who lives in the city of aurora with respect that he is a very dangerous precedent zoning ordinances mean something they mean something to all of us and that's really the full stop it's exclusively residential in our one in our five curative location is closer than two thousand five hundred feet to those two districts and therefore the permit a word secur use for marijuana of the vision yes it certainly can but where it goes location i'm sorry where that plant would be located would still have to comply with the x setback of two thousand five hundred feet from a residential area zone for excuse me a residential area and the department's rule of two thousand five hundred feet away from an area zoned exclusively for residential use so the fact that they're allowed to grant special use permits for these  these centers that's fine but you still do have to comply with the geographic location requirements and that again is you know what what the city of aurora and really i think al ordinances go to in terms of people should be able to rely that is where i live this is owned exclusively residential that the department is not going to say won't it not really not really and then you wind up in a situation may not wish start that there and i know there's a lot of talk about the airports and train stations and whatnot but you know the reality is they did zoning boards are looking for consistency in a residential district i think you will see a lot of parks and churches schools libraries things like that but the other i think thing that is different though is if there is especially use permit that's going to be granted in a print like in our one district in the world there's going to be notice there's going to be public hearing these people can come and speak their piece and say yes i want that no i don't want that here here's why that's not what's happening here here the department is saying this is our wall this is the way we interpret wall where you live this is no longer exclusively residential anymore without any input from the folks on the ground who actually live there so there was no input and i thought i heard an argument that there was a special use after pardon me after the circuit court's august th two thousand and seventeen order we did try to supplement the record with information pertaining to the public comments of those hearings because he has already reached his final judgment  judge who's denied allow that motion however in the supplemental record those materials are there there were a lot of complaints a lot of people in aurora and a lot of people on the du page county board were there and they did not want curat location or curative center where it was because it was less than two thousand five hundred feet from residential area