Dear Village Board members,
I understand the goal of allowing more “missing middle” housing, including duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. However, I am concerned that the proposed changes could create a significant financial incentive for developers to purchase and demolish existing homes and replace them with multi-unit buildings, changing the character of established neighborhoods. I am also concerned with the continued growing density in our village and how it affects quality of life. Finally, is this an initiative driven by the electorate or by the board?
Based on my research, I don’t believe this proposal will actually produce housing that is more affordable than what is already available. I am a builder, so well acquainted with the cost of construction in Oak Park and River Forest. A new fourplex can involve $2 million or more in land, construction, professional fees, financing and other development costs (happy to send a breakdown). Given these costs, four new units would ultimately rent for $3,000 to $5,000 per month or sell for $750,000 or more. These units are unlikely to be accessible to many moderate-income Oak Park households. At $3,000 per month, a household would need approximately $120,000 in gross annual income for rent to represent 30% of income, and to purchase a $750,000 unit with $10,000 in taxes at today’s mortgage rates, household income would need to be $200,000-$260,000.
The school impact fee paid by the developer is another concern; the homeowners in Oak Park are already struggling with high taxes. For a 1,001- to 1,300-square-foot unit, the current educational facilities impact fee is approximately $7,055, or about $28,000 for four such units. That is relatively small compared with the overall cost and potential value of a new fourplex, and doesn’t come close to representing the real cost to our schools. Have we looked at the educational and overall costs that would be caused by this re-zoning and determined that it would not create another tax burden on the existing residents?
I respectfully ask the board to consider specific safeguards, including:
Establishing clear affordability standards tied to household income, with meaningful income limits, rent limits and long-term affordability requirements;
Strengthening demolition protections for all older homes, and requirements that SF of new build will not exceed SF of what was removed (ideally, the existing building could be gutted and re-built for 2-3 units to maintain neighborhood continuity and aesthetics):
Adopting neighborhood design standards that limit building style, height, massing, lot coverage, setbacks and parking impacts so that new multi-unit buildings remain compatible with surrounding homes with the design standards being paramount (see comments above regarding re-use of structures and maintaining character);
Requiring a comprehensive study of the cumulative effects of the proposed zoning changes, including potential demolitions, displacement, traffic, parking, school enrollment, infrastructure capacity, tax increases and changes in neighborhood character; and
Delaying final adoption until the village has evaluated whether the proposal will produce genuinely attainable housing rather than primarily increasing development potential and property values.
I support thoughtful additions to Oak Park’s housing supply, but increased density should produce a meaningful public benefit — not simply additional development opportunities. The village should ensure that any zoning changes include protections for existing residents, existing homes and neighborhood character while delivering housing that is truly accessible to a broad range of households. Honestly, I do not see any benefits and only risk to the existing residents, taxpayers and voters in our village under the present proposal.
Pamela A. Whitehead & Pete Miller
Oak Park