I was glad to read Jack Crowe’s commentary [A reality check for zoning-change opponents, Viewpoints, Aug. 19] about the current turmoil over the reclassification of single-family zoning district in the village of Oak Park, especially because he focused on the only issue that should be considered in this matter: affordability.
Although to answer to his question, should we do it, I would say “No,” because to answers his other questions, there are doubts that it will work and nobody knows.
Jack goes on to use “grandfathered in” regarding the benefits of the increased equity in his home and of “bootleg two-flats.” The value of property in Oak Park is the genie let out of the bottle, there’s no putting it back in, values are driven by the market. Amending the zoning ordinance is not going to change the market and building 2-4-6 flats may increase the number of available housing units but won’t necessarily mean any of those new units will be affordable. The representatives of Opticos stated that there will be financial testing to determine if the affordability of any new units will “pencil-out,” so Opticos also has their doubts.
Opticos addressed the “bootleg two-flats” among the existing 519 parcels spread throughout the village containing as many as 1,000 living units. Under the current zoning ordinance, those parcels and all of those units are permitted as legal nonconforming uses. Changing the ordinance as proposed will reduce the number of legal nonconforming residential parcels to 104, while preserving the existing units in the newly classified neighborhood areas (Note the change in nomenclature substituting “areas” for “districts”).
Those units can be preserved, even protected, by changing the existing zoning ordinance whether they are in single-family neighborhood areas or other districts. Under Article 15, existing nonconforming residential units can be protected by amending Section 15.3 E (1)(a). Under the current zoning ordinance, nonconforming structures “may” continue unless unused for that purpose for a specified length of time, or the structure is damaged by more than 50%, according to the building code. Now, for either of those reasons the reuse of the structure would have conform with the legal zoning for that district (area) in which they are located.
The nomenclature of the ordinance states, “The terms ‘must’ and ‘will’ are mandatory, while the word ‘may’ is permissive.” By changing the current zoning ordinance to mandatorily permit existing bootleg two-flats and other buildings to be reoccupied or rebuilt in compliance with all building codes, the village preserves nonconforming residential units. New 2-4-6 unit buildings proposed for existing lots would still have to go through the procedures of the existing zoning ordinance.
Changing one section of the existing zoning ordinance is a lot easier than amending its entirety and would make peace with the majority of residents of an area or a district in Oak Park.
Chris Donovan
Oak Park