Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Forest Park council rejects zoning rewrite after questions about density, outreach
Summary
After extended debate over outreach, lot widths and stormwater, the Village Council failed to pass an ordinance amending Title 9 Chapter 3 of the zoning code on May 27, 2025. Two commissioners voted yes, two voted no and one abstained; staff said the update has cost about $40,000.
Forest Park — The Village Council voted down a proposed rewrite of the village zoning code on May 27, 2025, after several commissioners said they lacked key analysis and public outreach needed to back the changes.
Commissioner Nero moved the ordinance to amend Title 9, Chapter 3; Commissioner Maxim seconded. During a more than two‑hour debate, Commissioner Melon Rogovin said she did not have the documentation she needed "to vote on this ordinance," and repeatedly pressed for clearer data about lot‑coverage changes, setbacks and long‑term impacts on neighborhood character.
Public commenter Thomas Kovacs urged the council to reject the proposal, saying, "This thing is a piece of garbage," and warning that the changes would allow taller buildings and reduce setbacks that protect single‑family homes. Kovacs also said he had been given the wrong date for an earlier plan commission meeting and complained about outreach.
Director Glinkie, answering commissioners' questions, said the update is intended to make the code consistent with changing market demand and to regularize nonconforming lots. Staff cited a lot‑width analysis that showed about 76% of lots in town are currently nonconforming and said Forest Park's population declined by 3.4% from 2020 to 2024. On the council's question about program costs, Director Glinkie said the zoning update has cost approximately $40,000 to date.
Commissioners expressed recurring concerns about stormwater and permeability if density increases; several members asked for a formal audit or more public engagement before approving substantive changes. Director Glinkie emphasized that projects would undergo third‑party engineering and building‑code review and said on‑site stormwater requirements and permitting guardrails would remain in place.
On the roll call vote the ordinance did not pass: Commissioners Maxim and Nero voted yes; Commissioner Melon Rogovin abstained; Commissioner Vogt and Mayor Hoskins voted no. Because the measure failed to obtain a majority, the proposed zoning amendments were not adopted.
The council did not set a new date to resume consideration; commissioners discussed procedural options and a later motion to reconsider was made and then rescinded during the same meeting.
