Return to Top of PageProponents of the proposed amendments to River Forest's Zoning Ordinance have made a number of assertions to justify the amendments. None of there claims are based on the sort facts and research needed to justify these extreme restrictions of property rights. This page presents the factual information that is known -- and not known -- at the time the amendments were adopted in autumn 2001. Since then the Village President has gotten the comprehensive plan amended to support these exclusionary zoning practices.
River Forest Is Overwhelmingly
Single-Family Detached Housing
Claim: These zoning code amendments are needed for River Forest to keep its predominant single–family detached character.
THE FACTS:
Contrary to assertions made by Village officials, River Forest's predominantly single–family detached character is in no danger of changing even if all the land zoned for multifamily residential were to be developed at the maximum density allowed. In fact, only a small part of River Forest is currently zoned for multifamily use along North Avenue, Harlem, and Lake Street.
Percent of River Forest Land Occupied by Type of Land Use
[Source: River Forest Comprehensive Plan, page 12]
65% Single Family Detached Residential
25% Education, Institutions (religious), Government
4% Multifamily Residential
3% Retail Commercial Uses
3% Nonretail Commercial Services (Offices)
Amendments Violate Village's Comprehensive Plan
Claim: These zoning code amendments comply with the River Forest Comprehensive Plan. The Village Attorney has consistently misled the Zoning Board of Appeal at its public hearing on the proposed amendments. He told the ZBA that the proposed zoning amendments comply with River Forest's Comprehensive Plan. He quoted, out of context, a single goal of the Comprehensive Plan: "Maintain the Village as an exceptional residential community and retain its predominant single family detached dwelling character." (Page 29) Unfortunately, members of the audience were not allowed to respond to his assertion.
THE FACTS:
What the Village's Comprehensive Plan actually says about multifamily housing (townhouses and apartments, both rental and condominium) is very important because zoning is supposed to implement the comprehensive plan, not thwart it. Zoning amendments that violate the underlying comprehensive plan are usually illegal — especially when the local government has not conducted any studies to provide a factual basis for the zoning amendments (which is the situation in River Forest).
Many courts have ruled that zoning amendments that do not comply with a village's Comprehensive Plan are illegally “arbitrary and capricious” and subject to substantial financial penalties when challenged in court — which the taxpayers end up paying.
If you examine River Forest's Comprehensive Plan, you will find that the Village Attorney's interpretation of it is pure fiction. On that same page as the goal the Village Attorney quoted, the Plan notes that the "B" zoning district allows 50 dwelling units per acre and that the "Village should generally maintain the densities of individual parcels at existing permitted levels.
"However, some areas in the Village can accommodate new multiple family housing, but not at the current density allowed in "B" …districts." The Plan calls for the creation of districts allowing 20 dwelling units per acre, which was done. The proposed zoning amendments would reduce this density to 15 units per acre, violating the Comprehensive Plan.
On page 30 the Plan sets a goal to "Preserve a stable community of varying ages and characteristics" with an objective to "Maintain the desirable living and working environment which is attractive to a broad range of existing and potential Village Residents." It sets Policy A as "Encourage a mixture of various types of housing which will stabilize the Village's population." Policy C states: Encourage mid–rise multiple story residential housing as a permitted use above ground floor business use." Policy D states "Encourage the development of housing options for the elderly, such as independent and assisted living arrangements." The text notes that "there is currently a lack of housing alternatives in the Village for older residents." The proposed zoning completely violates these policies set in the Comprehensive Plan.
On page 19, the Comprehensive Plan sets a clear objective that the proposed zoning amendments violate: "Higher density housing should be established where convenient access to public transportation and neighborhood shopping and recreation facilities are available."
The Plan specifies areas of the Village that should have townhouses and apartments:
"The Village should encourage the redevelopment of the block [along North Avenue] between Harlem and Bonnie Brae, allowing for a ground floor commercial/ upper floor multiple family development." (Page 19)
The Plan calls for the Dominican Priory to be developed with "multiple family residential and office development, with a minor commercial component." (Page 20) The Village ignored its own guidelines in its Comprehensive Plan.
The Plan says that the multiple family dwellings on Harlem Avenue, Division to Chicago, "are compatible with the character of the Village."
The Plan calls for the property on Harlem south of Quick to be developed as multifamily residential or commercial. (Page 20) It calls for the Cook County Forest Preserve Headquarters to be redeveloped as multiple family residential. (Page 21)
On page 21, the Plan called for the Wieboldt block where Taxman built the exclusively commercial River Forest Town Centre, to be developed with "multiple family residential … on the upper floors." The Village violated this Plan provision.
The Plan calls for parcels in the West Lake Street Corridor to be converted to multiple family residential use (Page 22) — which would be impossible if the proposed zoning amendments are adopted.
The Plan calls for the Hines Lumbar Yard property on Madison Street to be "developed as multiple family residential or as a small neighborhood commercial center." (Page 22) It calls for the greenhouse at Gale and Madison to be redeveloped as a "larger retail or multiple family residential usage." (Page 23) — Once again the proposed zoning amendments do not comply with the Village's Comprehensive Plan.
The Plan states that if either Rosary College or Concordia College "chooses to leave River Forest, the campus should be redeveloped as a multiple family residential planned unit development…." (Page 23) Naturally, this would be impossible if the proposed amendments are passed.
The Plan states that if "the public use of Lincoln School does not continue, it should be redeveloped as a combined office, multiple family residential and ground floor retail development" (Page 23) — impossible to do if the proposed amendments are adopted.
The Plan even called for the site of Washington School to be turned into "low density multiple family residential which is compatible with the adjoining residential area. Retirement housing may be a suitable use of this site." (Page 24)
If either the Trinity High School or Willard School were to close, the Plan says it "is acceptable to convert it to a low density multiple family residential use which is compatible with the adjoining residential area" (Page 24) — which the proposed zoning amendments would prohibit.
On page 25, the Plan called for development of the Rosary Triangle to be developed as "low density multiple family residential, preserving as much of the natural features on the site as possible." Nobody is urging that this land be developed, but the proposed zoning amendments once again violate the Comprehensive Plan.
Note: After the Village Board adopted these zoning amendments, it revised the Comprehensive Plan and removed nearly all of the provisions cited above.
Research That Should Be Conducted First
Claim: Without these zoning code amendments, River Forest lose its single–family detached dwelling character and current zoning for multifamily housing is too dense.
THE FACTS:
No elected or appointed Village official can answer replace the question marks in the table below with actual numbers. This is the sort of information that is needed before the Village can enact the proposed zoning code amendments. All of the questions posed after the table should also be answered. Their answers may just show that there is no legal justification for the proposed zoning code amendments that would severely limit new construction of townhouses and apartments.
| Number of Multifamily Housing Units allowed under Current & Proposed Zoning | ||||
| Zoning Districts in Which Multifamily Residential is Allowed | Type of Multifamily Housing Allowed | Amount of Land in the Zoning District | Number of Existing Multifamily Units | Maximum Number of Multifamily Units Possible Under Proposed New Zoning |
| R3 | Townhouses | ? | ? | ? |
| R4 | Townhouses and apartments | ? | ? | ? |
| C2 | Townhouses and apartments | ? | ? | ? |
| C3 | Townhouses and apartments | ? | ? | ? |
Questions that need to be answered to fully understand what the effect of the
current and proposed zoning restrictions are on the character of River Forest:
Which Types of Housing Pay Their Own Way?
Claim: Many people intuitively think that because property taxes on their single–family detached houses are so high, their taxes must more than cover the cost of providing village services to them.
THE FACTS:
Actually, studies consistently show that it costs more to provide village services to the typical single–family detached house than its owners pay in property taxes. That's because the typical single–family detached house has more school–age children living in it than the typical townhouse or apartment.
The most expensive demand on village services is elementary school education. River Forest's own Zoning Ordinance shows that townhouses and apartments (whether rental or condominium) have fewer school–age children than detached single–family houses. Section 10–23–4 of the village's ordinance shows a table of children per dwelling unit for detached single–family (2, 3, 4, and 5 bedrooms), attached single–family townhouses (1, 2, 3, and 4 bedrooms), and apartments (efficiency, 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms). The table shows that, across the board, detached single–family houses send more children to school than townhouses do — and that apartments produce the fewest number of school–age children.
Research has consistently found that detached single–family houses the cost of providing municipal services to them is greater than what they pay in property taxes, while townhouses and apartments generate more property taxes than they require in village services. Severely restricting the development of townhouses and apartments only leads to higher property taxes for all of us to make up for the deficit detached single–family houses generate.
Nobody is suggesting that River Forest should expand the land zoned for multifamily housing. But there simply is no excuse to try to freeze the number of townhouses and apartments at their current level.