Trustees spar over request to allow 550‑sq‑ft apartment; ordinance not adopted on first reading

The Tinley Park Village Board spent more than an hour debating Ordinance 2026‑O‑039, a request to grant a variance from section V.C.2 of the municipal zoning code to allow a 550‑square‑foot apartment where the code standard is 800 square feet. The petition, which the planning commission recommended 7–1, was heard June 16, 2026; the petitioner (identified in the record as Mr. Curry) attended and spoke in favor.

The petitioner argued smaller units are a viable downtown housing option and said economic pressure — including a local tax increase on his property — justified the variance. “We’re asking for the variance for 550 square‑foot apartment in the building,” the petitioner said, adding that the unit would include a washer‑dryer and security cameras. He said electrical and plumbing permits were pulled in 2022 and that the walls remained open pending final inspection.

Trustees pressed the petitioner and staff on technical, safety and precedent questions. Trustee Shaw said he opposed the request, arguing the case mirrored a request rejected in 2021 and that the asserted hardship was economic rather than a unique property condition required by the variance standard: “I’m opposed to this, and I’ll be voting as such.” Other trustees raised egress concerns for a single‑entry unit and noted the code and past variances typically approved units much closer to the 800‑square‑foot standard. A staff representative and the mayor pointed to a code‑compliant alternative presented at the planning commission: combining adjacent space to create an approximately 1,100‑square‑foot two‑bedroom unit rather than approving a 550‑square‑foot one.

The record shows a mix of votes and procedural motions after debate. The mayor and trustees agreed the item would not be adopted on first reading as presented; the transcript shows a subsequent superseding motion to deny the variance was put to a roll call but did not carry. The board did not adopt the ordinance tonight; no final variance approval or permit was issued during the meeting.

Why it matters: The decision reflects a broader local debate about housing density, downtown economic pressures and how variances should be handled — case‑by‑case or by code change. Multiple trustees said if the board wants smaller units generally, the better path is a code amendment rather than repeated large variances.

What’s next: The record indicates the matter may return to the board for further action or amendment; no final adoption occurred at this meeting.