River Forest’s residents aren’t resting after the village’s zoning board voted against changes that would have permitted an increase to the maximum height of buildings, a decrease in parking requirements and increase in density in certain districts.
Amid residents’ vehement opposition to the changes and support for the zoning board’s 6-1 vote against the proposals, residents are anxiously awaiting how the full village board reacts to the zoning board’s recommendations. Zoning board decisions are recommendations and are not binding. Trustees make the final decisions.
The changes, recommended by the village’s economic development commission and proposed by Houseal Lavigne Associates — a firm that reviewed the village’s zoning code — were intended to attract developers by changing zoning requirements in the village’s C1 (North Avenue,) C2 (Madison Street,) and C3 (Central Commercial) districts.
On April 11, more than 150 residents turned out at the zoning board meeting held at Concordia University and dozens more attended by video conference. Residents, who overwhelmingly are opposed to the measure, spoke there about the proposals and submitted many letters to the zoning board ahead of the meeting.
Some residents, such as Donald and Anna Straub, citing their long-time residency and opposition, questioned why the zoning board would consider changes that were in direct conflict with the River Forest 2019 Comprehensive Plan Core Objectives, which are designed to balance the need for commercial areas with the importance of mitigating impacts on the Village’s residential neighborhoods.
“Each infill redevelopment opportunity requires a heightened level of sensitivity and creativity to appropriately balance the Village’s existing character with the need and desire for economic development,” an excerpt of the plan said.
In a letter, John Conmy, who said he could not attend the zoning board meeting because the Concordia location was not accessible, noted his family’s River Forest ties go back to 1935. Conmy objected to the reduced parking requirement and increased building height, saying, “If I wanted to live in a congested area like Oak Park, I would move there.”
Some residents said they support the proposal, including Kristine Mackey, who said in a letter that the increasing revenues for District 90 was key to her support, as was “modern, state of the art, attractive, walkable commercial zones” that she said could attract buyers and strengthen property values for homeowners.”
The Lathrop, Ashland, Franklin Neighbors group was represented in force at the meeting and had worked for the few weeks leading up to the meeting to gather community support to oppose the project. Deborah Borman, who helped found the group, said that the committee was formed more than two years ago when residents were upset by the poorly managed demolition of buildings on Madison Street.
She galvanized the group again this year when she said that it became clear at the March 14 zoning meeting that officials weren’t listening to residents.
“I thought, we need signs. We need to involve the community,” she said, noting that in a few weeks, more than 300 yard signs were put in place and 947 people signed a petition opposing the changes — more than 10% of the electorate.
“We wanted the entire village involved because it’s a tiny space. This affects everyone,” Borman added.
As of April 25, the number of petitioners had grown to 1,000. The population of River Forest is about 11,300.
Kelly Abcairan, a member of the LAF Neighbor group, added, “the village continues to make real estate decisions with a glaring absence of evidence. The promise that these changes would have a positive economic impact lacks any data to support it.”
She questioned the suggestion that the proposed changes would help the local schools. Noting that 72% of taxes go toward local schools, she said that the official demographers who were hired to project school enrollment numbers had to do so using historical information rather than anticipated numbers about the numbers of households in the village, which would take into account how changed zoning might impact enrollment.
In addition, she said that the proposed zoning changes would permit studio apartments to be built, but that developers pay impact fees based on numbers of bedrooms. With no bedrooms in new developments, developers would pay no impact fees.
“We need to study: Does more rental housing put more stress on infrastructure, schools, parking, sewers?” she says.
Overall, Abcairan said she thinks that bringing in more commercial development through restaurants and commercial spaces would have a better economic impact than adding more residential units without long-term planning.
“It goes back to where’s the data? Taking current commercial districts that today don’t allow residential use and now letting them be used for residential. What is the benefit?” she asked.
Borman pointed to the village’s lack of attention to the demolition of the Lutheran Children and Family Services building on Madison Street as evidence that officials don’t heed residents’ needs first.
“There’s a very strong sense that the village will never do the right thing,” she said.
Former Village Trustee Patty Henek also questioned the village’s decisions in the wake of the Lake and Lathrop development debacle. She said the timeline and lack of resident input so far is a problem. She added that it is common for a recommendation to be made with the intention that a fuller discussion happens later. That often never occurs, she said.
Borman, Abcairan and Henek each questioned the village’s public outreach efforts. They said officials have made no efforts other than posting agendas on the village’s website or publishing required legal notices in Wednesday Journal.
Henek suggested that trustees use the village’s official newsletter to alert all residents about proposals such as these.
“It’s hard to have robustly attended meetings if you don’t advertise it widely. How was the broader community supposed to know? The fact that the last meeting was so robustly attended is because of Debbie [Borman] and her group.”
“In terms of this topic, I do think the community needs to stay engaged.”
