There will be no residential zoning code updates in Forest Park for the foreseeable future.
The decision came at the May 27 village council meeting. The village council had tabled the residential zoning code in October, when only Commissioner Ryan Nero voted to pass the amendments. When the agenda item was brought up again at the May meeting, Mayor Rory Hoskins and Commissioner Jessica Voogd voted against it, and Commissioner Michelle Melin-Rogovin abstained from the vote. She declined to comment on her reason.
Hoskins, however, told the Review that he would vote to pass the code changes if more commissioners wanted to.
“Given the fact that there wasn’t more unanimity among the council, I wouldn’t want to see something like that be implemented,” he said. “I wasn’t going to cast a tie-breaking vote for changes of that nature.”
Those in favor of the changes say they would encourage appropriate development and, by doing so, help with the village’s finances. Those who are against it say the updates would encourage density, add to flooding and not help the village as a whole.
The biggest changes to Title 9, Chapter 3 of the village’s code would have increased maximum impervious lot coverage from 40% to 50% in low-density R1 districts; allowed 80% lot coverage instead of 40% and defined no minimum setbacks from property lines in high-density R3 districts; and allowed two-family dwellings in R1 districts, which would bring hundreds of homes into compliance with the code and allow hundreds of Forest Parkers to improve their two-flats.
“Seventy-six percent of the residential properties in Forest Park have one bulk feature – side yard setbacks, lot coverage – that are not compliant,” Director of the Department of Health and Safety Steve Glinke told the Review.
That’s over 2,100 of Forest Park’s 2,828 residential lots. If anyone living on those properties wants to refinance or implement any building changes, they won’t be able to because their properties don’t align with the current zoning code. “We write zoning compliance letters routinely. If we wrote them strictly according to the code, somebody couldn’t get financing.”
“They’re asking for something that the code doesn’t allow,” Glinke added of residents living on noncompliant properties. Because of this, they can’t go to a planning and zoning commission meeting to get conditional use. And Glinke said it’s stopped development for four homeowners who want to amend their residences.
With the rejection of the code, the residential zoning changes will have to go back to the planning and zoning commission before they can come back to a council vote. Glinke has been planning how to update batches of the code with the village’s planning services consultant of several years, Muse. Last year, they started rewriting parts of the code to be reviewed by the planning and zoning commission, then the village council.
In an interview with the Review following the June 9 council meeting, Melin-Rogovin and Voogd reiterated that they wanted a political consensus among commissioners and residents, rather than residential zoning updates that seem to align with individual goals for the village.
“The flip side to that coin is what’s their opposition to it? All I’ve been hearing is ‘it’s going to cause density and flooding,’” Glinke said. “Give us some feedback. Provide me with some argument that’s based on something objective. You can’t just say ‘density, flooding.’”
At the May 27 meeting, commissioners had the choice of approving the residential zoning changes, amending them or rejecting them. The latter won out.
Melin-Rogovin and Voogd said they were still concerned about how the changes will impact the village’s stormwater management and density. They say they want to see documentation, like an audit, that says why this is a priority of the village, that residents actually want this change.
An audit would cost the village tens of thousands of dollars that they don’t have “to invest in something that we pretty much have a firm hand on,” Glinke said. He added, “I’m not asking anybody to say that Steve Glinke has the first and last word,” since consultants like Muse and the planning and zoning commission had a large hand in developing the residential zoning codes.
And with the village in a major deficit, Glinke said residential zoning changes are a potential place to earn the village some money.
“It’s time to take broad strokes and get ourselves in a sound financial position. The zoning changes have that potential to contribute to the local economy in a positive and controlled way,” Glinke said.
Glinke added that he isn’t worried about density or stormwater management, saying the latter is a part of construction on any property, as engineers and urban planners use best practices on a case-by-case basis.
“The guardrails are in place,” Glinke said. He added that “density and overcrowding are completely unrelated. Density is an urban planning metric. It’s what contributes to the local economy. The denser the population, the more walkable it tends to be, the more sustainable it tends to be.”
But Melin-Rogovin has concerns about decreasing minimum lot sizes and increasing allowable building sizes.
“This is going to change how our town looks and feels in the future,” she said. Residents “care about how they get around, how big their yards are, how big their neighbors’ yards are. When you start to talk about the real-life impact on your neighborhood, people care about it.”
To Glinke, the code updates will promote growth in the village and cater to what he’s seeing as Forest Park’s biggest buying demographic: young professionals and retired people from neighboring villages who want to downsize. Glinke said he’s seen few families with school-aged children buy property in Forest Park in recent years – something he thinks the village would want to attract, given that its population decreased 3.4% from 2020 to 2024.
“We’re not looking to become like a hip version of Del Webb here,” Glinke said. Instead, he said the village should focus on single-family homeowners, who are more likely to invest in Forest Park by sending their children to local schools and engaging in village activities.
“Everybody has their idea of what an ideal town is, but in terms of best planning practices, that’s the direction Muse thinks the town ought to take,” Glinke said. “Forest Park is essentially a transient town. It’s three-quarters of multifamily housing and most of that is apartment buildings. Those people don’t put down roots.”
“All these things have a direct benefit to residents, whether they’re current residents or potential future residents,” Glinke added. “This is not zoning in a vacuum. This is community development. This is positively impacting median home value.”
Comprehensive plan
Voogd said the residential zoning code updates are in opposition to the village’s comprehensive plan, what commissioners and staff consider to be a roadmap for the village’s future.
For example, whereas the recommended code changes would have allowed two-family dwellings in R1 districts, the comprehensive plan “promotes the conversion of non-conforming multi-family properties back to original single family uses in R-1 Low Density Residential Districts.” The plan also says, “single family homes that were previously converted to multiple units should be reduced in density or converted back to their original single-family status.”
The village has had several conversations, even before the recent code updates were proposed, about when and how to update the plan, given that it is over a decade old.
“It’s a little bit of a chicken or the egg at this point because the comp plan is old and it needs to be updated, but without updating it, how do we make recommendations?” Voogd said.
At the last May council meeting, Voogd requested documentation for what informed the residential zoning code changes. She told the Review that it’s standard procedure in other communities to have an audit or proposal of planned phases or recommendations of what needs to be updated.
“There is a codified basis or process for making these changes, and we’re not seeing that,” Melin-Rogovin said. “When we’re asked to make decisions about spending large amounts of money, making big changes, we have documentation to review, we have the basis of the recommendations that we can read and evaluate. We don’t have that.”
Both Melin-Rogovin and Voogd told the Review that their concerns about density, stormwater management and public engagement could all be addressed through such documentation.
“For me, it’s all one package,” Voogd said, since data collection leading to a recommendation would likely include impacts of stormwater and density. She said it would also include a public engagement effort.
Though the planning and zoning commission held three public meetings last year – which were announced in the Review, on the village’s website and in its weekly newsletter – to discuss the residential zoning code changes before recommending the village approve them, no residents commented at the meetings and they weren’t recorded to be watched after the fact.
While Glinke previously told the Review that residents have the responsibility to be engaged, Voogd said the village could be doing a lot more.
“The impetus should be on us not to do the bare minimum,” Voogd told the Review. Though future PZC meetings will be recorded and uploaded to the village’s website after, Voogd said other communities hang a banner announcement or send mailers and post cards when there’s a meeting. “I just want to make sure I’m doing my due diligence as their representative to make sure that I am fully informed and not only understand what this is but understand the effects of it.”
Voogd said she’s sent information and examples of what documentation she’s looking for to village staff. Glinke said he hasn’t seen that.
Melin-Rogovin said it’s up to department staff and Entler to decide the next steps. “I feel like we’ve provided a lot of input and specific information.”
But Glinke said he’s not sure what the next steps are.
“Based on the lack of feedback, I walked away from that meeting feeling like I didn’t have a direction from the board,” he said.
Glinke is drafting a position piece with the village’s consultant, Muse, to send to elected officials, the Review, and to post on the village’s website to address any remaining questions.
“Then I’m either going to celebrate or tap out,” he said. “There are too many things that need to be done on a day-to-day basis. I can’t fight this fight anymore.”