Battle erupts over rezoning Home Avenue historic property

Developers open to talks with neighbors


Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Show/Hide Gallery

By Lacey Sikora

Contributing Reporter

On the 300 block of South Home Avenue in Oak Park, the COVID-19 pandemic delayed but didn't end a heated debate over proposed new development and increased density in Oak Park's Ridgeland Historic District. 

The controversy centers on two lots -- 327 S. Home Ave., site of a former single-family home long ago converted to four rental units, and, 329 S. Home Ave., which is vacant green space. 

For many neighbors, the first hint that the area was the site of a proposed 16-unit development came in March when a village sign announced public hearings on the developer's request for a zoning change. 

The property sold in August 2019 for $785,000, to Mazola Home Ave. LLC, a development company managed by Claudia Mazola, a real estate broker affiliated with New West Realty in Chicago, which is managed by former Chicago Alderman Ted Mazola. 

River Forest architect John Schiess is designing the project. Schiess has been involved with many local developments, including the Oasis townhouse project on Chestnut Lane, located behind the proposed Home Avenue development.

Now though the tensions are not just between neighbors and the developers. Instead Ted Mazola said Monday that Schiess had "misrepresented" what current zoning allows to be built. In an R5 district only a two-flat can be constructed. The original plan developed with Schiess called for 16 units plus the renovated four-flat next door.

Mazola, who said he has always wanted to meet directly with neighbors, said he would plan a meeting and "listen to their concerns." He said he understands the size of any project will now be notably reduced but that he would ask neighbors to support "building something more than a deuce (two-flat)."  

Original plans for the vacant parcel of land called for an L-shaped building that would wrap around the rear of the existing building at 327 S. Home Ave. The combined total number of units in the two buildings, 16, exceeded the current zoning allotment, which necessitated a public hearing and Oak Park Plan Commission approval.

Craig Failor, Oak Park's village planner, says the Plan Commission's April 2 hearing had to be cancelled due to the pandemic, and says the village is awaiting guidance from the governor on when and how to resume public meetings. 

According to Failor, the developer had sought a zoning map amendment, not a variance. Currently 327 and 329 S. Home Ave., like the rest of the homes to the north and east on the block, are zoned R5, or two-family. 

The four-unit apartment building at 327 S. Home Ave. was grandfathered in. To the south, is a multi-unit condominium building, zoned R7, the highest class of multifamily. The developers sought to change the zoning for the lots to R6, on the lower end of multifamily zoning, which would allow their development to accommodate the proposed 16 units.

In addition to the new L-shaped building, plans called for the existing four-unit building to be altered, including adding a front porch and two front dormers, so the architectural styles of the two buildings matched.

And after getting pushback on the proposal during a meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on June 17, developers are considering changing direction, though Schiess said all options remained on the table.

Earlier this month, Schiess told Wednesday Journal that he wanted to work within existing zoning and advocated for a smaller development, an eight-unit building, at 329 S. Home Ave. 

However, after acknowledging that the existing zoning designation of R5 prohibits any dwelling larger than two units, Schiess said, "My recommendation to the developers is to work with the neighbors. It's not my call. I laid out all of the options and the developers will decide."

Prior to the June 17 meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission received one letter signed by 35 neighbors and 18 other letters in opposition to the initial proposal. 

After the meeting, neighbors mounted an opposition campaign via their Facebook page Preserve Home Avenue and a petition on Many of those opposed say that they are not anti-development but that they are against a development of this size in an historic district.

Heinz Schuler, who has lived in his 1890s-era home on the block for 13 years, is one of those neighbors opposed to the project. He states that he is not anti-development and would welcome a scale-appropriate two-flat on the vacant lot, but he believes that the proposed project is too large for the street. 

"It's not in the character of the homes on the block. It's massive," Schuler said. "We're looking at 16 units on two residential lots. It's nothing like any of the homes we have on the street."

Schuler also believes that granting the zoning amendment would set a bad precedent. "The argument from the developer is that this could create transitional zoning," Schuler said. "If they do that here, what's to stop it from happening in other areas in the village? If the village values the historic districts, to allow developers to chip away at that is concerning."

Neighbor Charles Watkins, who lives directly across the street from the proposed development is also opposed. 

"I think everybody is opposed to it as far as I know," Watkins said. "People are up in arms, and I think justifiably so."

He also cited the developer's lack of ties to the Oak Park area, stating, "It strikes me as a cash-grab kind of development. It's purely money-driven." 

Watkins, along with Schuler, also points to the 2014 Envision Oak Park Comprehensive Plan, which was meant to inform land-use decisions in the village. Among other things, that plan states that "village government should ensure that historic development is properly preserved, and new development appropriately complements the existing character of the community."

The Historic Preservation Commission is involved in the process, said Susie Trexler, historic preservation urban planner for the village, because the commission is tasked with "consider[ing] the long-term compatibility of the proposed zoning action" with other structures within a given historic district.

In addition, the commission applies the village's Architectural Review Guidelines in discussing proposed new buildings' design.

At the June 17 meeting, historic preservation commissioners voiced their opposition to the proposed zoning changes. 

Commissioners also considered the proposed design, discussing the streetscape, the size and scale of the proposed building, the style, the roof design, the external walkway and whether it is appropriate to attach the new building to the rear of the historic building at 327 Home Ave. 

Many of the commissioners expressed concerns about the new building abutting the existing condominiums next door, as well as extending the front setback 25 feet closer to the street than 327 S. Home Ave. and neighboring houses.

At the meeting, Schiess pointed out that the size of the proposal met current site setback requirements and argued that the streetscape remained the same. 

Interviewed after the virtual meeting, Schiess says he and the development team contend that a transitional zoning classification of R6 makes sense. He added that the project's design complements the historic neighborhood.

"Out of the gate, I thought this was a really good fit," Schiess said.

Love the Journal?

Become our partner in independent community journalism

Thanks for turning to Wednesday Journal and We love our thousands of digital-only readers. Now though we're asking you to partner up in paying for our reporters and photographers who report this news. It had to happen, right?

On the plus side, we're giving you a simple way, and a better reason, to join in. We're now a non-profit -- Growing Community Media -- so your donation is tax deductible. And signing up for a monthly donation, or making a one-time donation, is fast and easy.

No threats from us. The news will be here. No paywalls or article countdowns. We're counting on an exquisite mix of civic enlightenment and mild shaming. Sort of like public radio.

Claim your bragging rights. Become a digital member.

Donate Now

Reader Comments

6 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy

John Conour  

Posted: July 20th, 2020 9:54 AM

This is a similar approach that Schiess is using at 435 West Madison but in partnership with the MAREG Group and Thomas Meador. The 435 West Madison development abuts the Gunderson Historic District, and they've asked for 5 zoning variances. Look-up contributions paid to Ex-Alderman Danny Solis in exchange for approving another one of Meador's proposed developments. The Plan Commission has rejected their application TWICE, but with Meador involved, I have serious concerns.

Jeffrey Smith  

Posted: July 14th, 2020 2:30 PM

Follow the money. Why not? When it comes to tax funded giveaways, destroyers - sorry, "developers" - have numerous ways of greasing the palms of politicians and being richly rewarded.

Kim Decker  

Posted: July 14th, 2020 10:59 AM

Remember this at election time. The mayor and his cohorts only care about themselves and enriching their pockets. They don't give a damn about density, parking or the people who live here. It's all about money. Vote them all all next election but especially Anan Abu-Taleb. He has destroyed Oak Park with his grotesque high rises and he will continue to do so as long as he is in office. VOTE HIM OUT!

Emu Llama Chiao from Oak Park  

Posted: July 14th, 2020 7:15 AM

Having another development on Home Ave does not make sense. Congestion is the main argument here- there are already new developments on home and Madison and home and Washington. Think about how busy home Ave is going to be. This is going to wreck the "historic nature" of the district. John Scheiss' approach And the assumption that re-zoning can happen simply smacks of arrogance and privilege of a has-been architect who is not in touch with the concerns of the Home Ave neighbors.

Heinz Schuller from Oak Park  

Posted: July 13th, 2020 10:08 PM

Readers can view the petition which has received over 200 signatures, and access the developer's proposal at this link:

Tom MacMillan from Oak Park  

Posted: July 13th, 2020 7:04 PM

Putting 16 units in that spot zoned for two does two very bad things. First, you are going to have as many as 28 extra cars wanting to park on that street as they will dump that problem on the neighbors. Secondly, if it is ok to do it there then it must be ok to do it on other blocks near there, with the same extra impact on parking. This is a cash grab by someone and probably just the tip of the iceberg on other shortcuts this developer will do on this dump and run project he wants. NO, NO, NO. We do not need those units there.

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2019

To view the full print edition of the Wednesday Journal 2019 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.

MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad

Classified Ad

Latest Comments