For the first time in 16 years, Forest Park has updated its building code to reflect the latest editions of international, national and state building codes, residential codes, fire codes and property maintenance codes.
But the passage, ultimately unanimous, did not come without intense debate among commissioners, a criticism of Mayor Rory Hoskins’ leadership by a commissioner who then had his microphone turned off, and a warning from another commissioner that the village’s out-of-date codes were stalling development in Forest Park during a “desperate”` financial situation.
Over the last two years, Forest Park’s village council has been debating proposals to update the village’s outdated code. Concerns over changes to the residential zoning portion of the code have divided the board and are not currently on a path to a certain resolution.
Nero asks to revisit residential zoning updates
During his commissioner’s report, Commissioner Ryan Nero asked for the village to revisit updates to the village’s residential zoning code that would streamline the building review process and decrease the number of nonconforming properties in Forest Park.
Forest Park has been working to update chunks of its code over the past two years, including the residential zoning code. Commissioners first voted whether to update the code’s residential zoning in October 2024, when it was tabled for further discussion. Then, Commissioner Michelle Melin-Rogovin shared concerns about how the zoning changes would impact stormwater management and density. Commissioner Jessica Voogd said she had questions about what information and data was used to inform these recommendations and requested more public outreach.
After months of inaction, last May, a majority of commissioners voted to not pass the zoning updates. The updates will have to go back through the Planning and Zoning Commission before returning to the village council for another vote.
In December, Steve Glinke, head of the village’s building department, put together and dispersed an eight-page memo that broke down the zoning code’s amendments and the process the village went through with its planning consultant, Muse, to do peer research and audit current code regulations. The memo also outlined the village’s Planning and Zoning Commission’s two public workshops and a public hearing in 2024.
At a December village council meeting, Voogd said the memo reiterated what had already been shared and didn’t address her concerns.
At the Jan. 25 council meeting, Nero said he thought the report was comprehensive and addressed commissioners’ worries. He added that, since the report, no commissioners have submitted any questions or comments to the department.
“Either we’re not on the same page, or maybe I’m confused, or maybe the questions were answered in a way that perhaps we still aren’t happy with,” Nero said.
Nero suggested that commissioners who still have questions provide the building department with their recommendations and research to substantiate them. He also recommended that the village council and Planning and Zoning Commission have a public meeting together.
During Voogd’s commissioner’s report following Nero’s, she said, “Your inaction is not my responsibility. For almost a year now, we keep coming to these meetings, and you say that you haven’t received any questions or any comments or any suggestions, and we refer back to the questions, comments and suggestions that we sent at the end of ‘24 and in May of ‘25.”
“Just ignoring those doesn’t make them go away,” Voogd added. “This is held up because you’re not responding. I’m at my wit’s end here. Give me a call. Let’s talk about this.”
Meanwhile, updates to the building code were delayed at a December village council meeting, when Commissioner Michelle Melin-Rogovin moved to table the updates so commissioners had more time to review them, and Commissioner Jessica Voogd seconded the motion. Commissioners unanimously passed the building code updates at the Jan. 25 council meeting, but not without a discussion to amend them and some confrontation among commissioners.
Voogd moved to adopt code updates from the International Code Council and amend municipal building codes because there were two sections that were previously recommended by village consultants and staff and adopted by a previous council that are now suggested to be struck from the code. The sections involved carbon monoxide alarms and requirements that could trigger the costly installation of automatic sprinkler systems is buildings that are changing uses.
Steve Glinke, head of the building department and director of the public health and safety department, said the carbon monoxide section is being removed because it’s redundant in the village code, since Illinois state law already requires what was suggested.
Glinke said recommended language for the sprinkler system change came from the Means Report, “which is cyclical. It’s tied to markets. It’s tied to value. It’s arbitrary, and there really wasn’t any way to actually apply that in the code.” And the cost of a sprinkler system can be prohibitive, he said. “If you’re forced into a sprinkler retrofit on a single-family dwelling, you’re talking about another $40,000.” He added that the village hasn’t enforced this part of the code.
Glinke, who was the village fire chief for 16 years, said sprinklers aren’t necessarily a life-saving measure in single-family dwellings, as they take a long time to respond to intense heat, and that early notification from interconnected smoke detectors are more effective.
After speaking with Fire Chief Lindsey Hankus, Voogd said it was her understanding that sprinklers save lives in newer single-family dwellings, where structural collapse can happen a lot more quickly during a fire because of lighter building materials.
Hankus told the Review that the way the sprinkler section of the code is written is convoluted and outdated, but that she thinks the intent was to protect newer building materials made with glue or metal from collapsing.
“When we have those materials, we need to protect those materials, and generally sprinklers protect those materials,” Hankus said. She added that the code should “protect people first and property second” but that “sprinklers do save lives. They are important.”
“We’re not advocating for anything that makes residents or firefighters less safe. We want to speak to life safety, not policy preferences or revenue,” Hankus told the Review. “As long as the changes to the code don’t put anybody in danger, they do what they need to do.”
Amending the building code
Village Attorney Nick Peppers said the village council could amend the building code in order to keep the struck sections in it or pass the code as presented without them and later amend to add them back in.
“I would maybe offer to approve it the way it is and just table this issue for further discussion when you have more information, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater by not doing the whole code,” Peppers said. “Steve [Glinke] touched on a point that this village is behind its obligation to pass these updated building codes.” He added that there’s no penalty for not updating the code and sprinkler systems are a complicated issue for many villages because of the high cost of construction.
Voogd then moved to amend the code in order to keep the requirements about carbon monoxide alarms and sprinkler systems.
“I would like to have a little bit more in depth conversation about this to better understand what we’re doing,” Voogd said, adding that she’d like to do more research on how the change would affect the community. “I know we are supposed to take into consideration recommendations from our consultants and staff, but in 2010, they recommended that this was a good idea, and I just want to know why it’s not anymore.”
Voogd and Commissioner Michelle Melin-Rogovin voted to amend the code, but the other three commissioners voted not to. Commissioners then unanimously voted to pass the building code updates as presented, with the two sections removed.
During discussion, Commissioner Maria Maxham said she wasn’t prepared to vote to amend the building code because she hadn’t done the research Voogd had. And that, when she last checked in with Village Administrator Rachell Entler, there were no more questions or concerns about the code. After the council meeting, Maxham sent an email to commissioners to follow up on the sprinkler systems provision that was removed from the building code updates. She said she reached out to Hankus for her assessment and is willing to pursue amendments to reinstate the section if needed.
“I think where the sticking point for me is when I hear somebody say, ‘This is going to impede development,’” Maxham said at the meeting, as Voogd tried to interrupt. “We are suffering financially in ways that I don’t think this village has ever seen, and I don’t think most people in the community are aware that we’re in a really desperate situation.”
Commissioner Ryan Nero agreed: “We have absolutely handcuffed development in the town. If a resident wants to make substantial property upgrades to their home, we’re saying, ‘Nope, you can’t do that unless you retrofit your home with a sprinkler detection system.’ Well, that’s a no go, man.”
Nero said the council was having a great forum and added that Glinke is a good source to answer Voogd’s questions about the sprinkler systems.
“It doesn’t get more expert than that in terms of life safety, fire code, fire safety, sprinkler systems,” Nero said. “He gave you some answers and then you disagreed with him, but he’s the expert, and so was the planner.…If you’re not getting the answers from our resident department head expert, what are you going to do over the next X amount of days to make yourself feel comfortable?”
“I’m concerned about development, but I’m also concerned about safety,” Voogd responded. “I’m concerned about neighbors, I’m concerned about our first responders, and I have to do a lot of research because I don’t often get robust answers. I get short answers: ‘Unenforceable, doesn’t work, just pass it.’ So, I do have to do a little bit more digging to try to inform myself. But this is seriously just asking for us to pause and consider what this change means, and on a bigger scale, why isn’t it being enforced and what else isn’t being enforced?”
Hoskins asks council for decorum
As Voogd spoke, Nero tried to interrupt her and Hoskins asked that, when a commissioner is speaking, the council needs to let that commissioner finish their comment.
Nero responded: “You know what I’m tired of, Rory [Hoskins,] you sit here biweekly and you have no opinion about anything. You make no comment about anything, and as soon as I speak up to try to—” before Hoskins asked Deputy Clerk Megan Roach to turn off Nero’s microphone.
Before moving on, Hoskins requested decorum and suggested that Nero leave if he can’t respect that. Melin-Rogovin then said, while not ideal, asking for additional clarification is perfectly fine.
“We all do our best to do a good job. I think we’re all doing what we want to do and do our best to serve the community,” Melin-Rogovin said. “We don’t always have to understand our particular points of view, and we can disagree, but at the end of the day, how we express our points of view and how we want to represent the village is in our vote.”
During her commissioner’s report, Voogd agreed: “We’re all different people. We all have different styles and approaches to holding this office and how we serve our community. And I’m guilty, I try to do research, I try to be as informed as possible. I have no interest in being a rubber stamp or voting a certain way because I was told to. And that’s me, but I hope, however everybody else up here approaches this office, we can all meet each other with some sort of common decency and respect for the fact that we’re up here volunteering our time and trying to serve our community.”