Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning overhaul to ease housing development stalls after heated village board debate
Summary
Trustees debated a sweeping amendment to DeForest's zoning code intended to reduce reliance on plan‑unit developments, enable smaller lots and townhouse ownership structures, and encourage 'missing‑middle' housing. After more than an hour of public and trustee concerns about density, street widths and services, the ordinance failed on a 3–3 tie.
The Village of DeForest on July 1 considered a comprehensive zoning amendment aimed at making it easier to build smaller, more affordable housing without requiring a plan‑unit development (PUD) for each project. Staff described the change as a way to align standard zoning with developments the village has already permitted and to create more owner‑occupied, 'missing‑middle' housing options.
Planning staff member Mark introduced the ordinance, telling trustees the proposal would expand an RM6 traditional housing district, allow narrower lots and private roads where appropriate, and add tools such as zero lot lines and townhouse ownership forms that let individual units be sold separately. "If you're a community that's relying on plan unit development zoning, basically special zoning for every project that comes forward, that tells you that your zoning ordinances broke," Mark said, arguing the revisions are meant to reduce administrative burden and clarify standards.
The ordinance drew sustained pushback from several trustees and public safety staff. Concerns focused on density, narrower street widths, and potential effects on police and public works operations. Police and public works staff warned that narrower streets and private roads can cause parking and plowing challenges and create expectations about maintenance that later fall to the village. "Where the roads are narrow, it becomes a problem for public works to plow it. Where do they push snow to? The residents have a hard time parking," Lieutenant Berg said.
Trustees also raised questions about whether the changes would be consistent with the village comprehensive plan and with resident survey responses that expressed preferences for lower density in many neighborhoods. Trustee objections cited the speed and breadth of the changes—some trustees called for broader public engagement and mapping to show specifically where new rules would apply.
Public commenter Bernard Cox used his three minutes to urge the board to prioritize transparency, alleging a pattern of developer subsidies and asking trustees to "take off the red noses" and return to governance rather than spectacle.
After discussion and motions, the board voted on ordinance 2025‑026. The motion failed on a 3–3 tie. Trustees agreed to return the item to staff with requests for additional public listening sessions, clearer mapping of where changes would apply on the future land‑use map, and consideration of narrower, staged amendments rather than a single omnibus change.
What comes next: Staff told trustees they will work with planning and zoning commissioners to present the proposal in smaller pieces and host additional outreach so residents can see which areas would be affected before returning the ordinance to the board.
