The discussion over discussions continues on Forest Park’s village council. We continue to find it both interesting and worthy of more discussion.
At a council meeting last week, the five-member body talked for 40 minutes about a notable proposal to substantively update zoning in the village. Ultimately, the council chose to table the measure pending further, well, discussion. That’s a solid decision, given how important this conversation is in a town where zoning has been most often ignored.
In general terms, we are supportive of the coming changes, as they go a long way toward resolving the festering issue of so many Forest Park residential structures being noncompliant with the existing zoning law. These are the many side houses and back-of-the-yard dwellings that were built decades ago in the absence of proper zoning. So, yes, they are noncompliant, but there they are, plain as day, sitting there paying taxes and providing solid housing. Taking them out of zoning limbo is the necessary and imperfect solution.
And the council will get there soon, we are confident.
Meanwhile, council members continue to have questions on other aspects of the zoning re-do. These are legitimate questions, as they relate to the impact of increasing housing density. And in a town by a river with obsolete sewers, how do these zoning changes impact storm water management?We want to better understand those implications, too.
How to get to those understandings was the subject of the discussion at the village council table last week. Commissioner Maria Maxham’s point seems to be that commissioners had weeks to review the chapter of the zoning code that was tabled. Meanwhile, seven months is the time frame that Steve Glinke, head of the village’s multipurpose Public Health and Safety Department, clocks as when work started on updating the zoning code as a whole. Updates have rightly and effectively percolated up to the village council through multiple meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
At issue is how members of the council get their questions answered. Do they do it in advance through conversations with department heads and the village administrator? That’s one good way. But the viewpoint expressed by Commissioner Jessica Voogd is that public discussions at village council meetings are also essential. We agree wholeheartedly that residents need to hear the questions and answers, and also the dialogue among the mayor and commissioners.
Commissioner Ryan Nero called last week’s well-spent 40 minutes “a good example of what civil, robust discussions in the council chambers can yield.”
A final point: Commissioner Michelle Melin-Rogovin is right in saying that, while the good work of the zoning commission is valued and its recommendations respected, it is fully the responsibility of the council to debate and decide the path to take on zoning issues. Commissions are advisory. The village council is the elected body whose efforts are ultimately reviewed by voters.
If there are more questions from the council, that is all good. A resolution on zoning will come when those questions are answered.