We are writing to raise concerns about how the village of River Forest handled the recent lighting proposal from the River Forest Tennis Club. Our village government is typically fair and professional, but the process surrounding this proposal has exposed serious problems.
First, a member of the Development Review Board (DRB), Elias Yanaki, presented on behalf of the Tennis Club. He gave a 30-minute presentation supporting the project, acting as the club’s official representative. That is a direct violation of the village’s ethics ordinance, which clearly states that a board member cannot represent another organization in front of the same board they sit on. They may only speak during public comment as private residents — not as advocates for a group with business before the board. This violated both the letter and the spirit of the ethics rules meant to prevent conflicts of interest.
Second, the DRB itself is heavily stacked with Tennis Club members. Four out of the seven DRB members belong to the private club. Although Tennis Club members represent only about 1.8% of River Forest residents, they make up 57% of the board reviewing the club’s own proposal. Elias Yanaki recused himself from voting after participating in the public meeting on Nov. 6 (https://www.vrf.us/events/event/2856), but the damage was done. When three other RFTC members were given the opportunity to recuse themselves, they continued to ignore the ethics ordinance and declined. Tennis Club members are owners of the club, and ethics rules require them to recuse themselves from matters where they have a direct interest. Instead, they have been placed in decision-making roles on a project that benefits their own private organization.
Finally, the lighting proposal was sent to the wrong board altogether. This project is effectively a zoning variance request, which should have gone to the Zoning Review Board (ZRB). When questioned, a village official claimed the Tennis Club’s property is a “planned development.” That is simply not true. The club was built in 1905 — long before planned developments even existed. In zoning terms, it’s just an “existing” property, not a planned development. Sending it to the DRB, where standards are significantly more lenient than the ZRB, gave the proposal an easier path than the rules allow.
River Forest residents deserve a fair, unbiased, and transparent process. We rely on our boards to follow the rules, avoid conflicts of interest, and ensure that no private group — especially one representing less than 0.2% of our village — can influence decisions that impact the entire community.
Paul Harding, FAIA
On behalf of concerned families of River Forest