In Smart Growth Sugar Grove, LLC v. Village of Sugar Grove, 375 Ill. App. 3d 780, 789, 873 N.E.2d 20, 313 Ill. Dec. 725 (2007), the Village of Sugar Grove adopted a comprehensive rezoning plan that recommended using part of the plaintiffs property for a highway interchange. The plaintiff filed a complaint against the village, alleging in pertinent part, that the village's comprehensive plan that recommended using part of the plaintiffs property for a highway interchange violated the plaintiffs rights. The Court held on appeal that those counts of the complaint concerning the recommendation of the highway interchange were properly dismissed because they did not present a ripe controversy. The Court found that the mere proposal to building the interchange was not actionable because determining whether the proposal violated the plaintiffs rights would require an advisory opinion or legal advice about future events. Smart Growth, 375 Ill. App. 3d at 789-90. The court noted the distinction between a zoning ordinance, which was a law, and a comprehensive plan, which was not a law and therefore not actionable. Smart Growth, 375 Ill. App. 3d at 789.