.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Proviso Probe

Monday, September 11, 2006

GOV, zoning concerns in Forest Park [FP]

Email from CUinFP:
There is an active group of citizens from the 400-500 blocks of Elgin concerned about zoning and the development of 8 townhomes to replace 2 single family homes on the 500 block of Elgin. These issues are on the Village Council Agenda for this evening (9/11/06).

The citizens of this group have planned some informational picketing this evening (6:15 pm), at Village Hall, before the Council meeting. If you are concerned about these issues and would like to join them, please do so.

While CUinFP does not take positions on such issues, our mission is to disseminate information to citizens as it comes to us.


  • Who gives a shit about CUFP

    By Anonymous Citizen against CUFP, at 11:41 PM, September 11, 2006  

  • Hey dummy!. It has nothing to do with CUinFP. However, please feel free to post and show your ignorance again.

    By Anonymous gusto, at 6:52 AM, September 12, 2006  

  • Hey gusto when was the last time you looked in the mirror?

    You just can't fix stupid can you?

    By Anonymous Citizen against cufp, at 9:39 AM, September 12, 2006  

  • Good comeback! What a coward.

    By Anonymous gusto, at 9:49 AM, September 12, 2006  

  • Why anyone would want to be a citizen against Forest Park I have no clue. I am not a member and have never attended one of their meetings but they appear to me to be out there to observe and let others know what is going on in FP. What's so bad about that? The only other person I know that seems to think CUinFP is evil is the Mayor. So citizen against cufp are you the Mayor? or one of his "volunteers" perhaps? Why so afraid of an organization that welcomes anyone who wants to attend, to attend one of their meetings. Have you ever gone and been turned away? Just curious.

    By Anonymous forest park citizen, at 10:27 AM, September 12, 2006  

  • I am not the mayor nor am I one of his volunteers I am my own person who trys to read thru the bullshit crap going on here lately. Also I am not against Forest Park. I support Forest Park. I am against those who are bringing Forest Park down and I put CUFP in that class.

    Read the posts, don't read into them. I never said I am against Forest Park.

    Clean off your glasses.(:)

    By Anonymous Citizen against cufp, at 10:45 AM, September 12, 2006  

  • Here's what it says: "Citizen against Citizens United In Forest Park". So that could easily be taken to mean you are a citizen against the citizens who are united in Forest Park.

    Again, I'll pose the question: Have you ever attended any of CUinFP's meetings? and been turned away? witnessed whatever bad things you believe they are doing against FP? I'm sure CUinFP would welcome a new member.

    By Anonymous forest park citizen, at 11:56 AM, September 12, 2006  

  • citizen against,

    Why do you object to CUinFP?

    I've got some thoughts on the meeting, but I'll wait until the FPR comes out tomorrow.

    By Blogger Carl Nyberg, at 12:12 PM, September 12, 2006  

  • Forest Park Citizen, I can see your point.

    So to restate me comment I am not against the citizens of Forest Park.

    I am against the organization CUFP.

    That's all.

    By Anonymous Citizen against cufp, at 2:56 PM, September 12, 2006  

  • citizen against: I see Carl has asked you and I'll ask one more time (you seem to avoid answering the question for some reason): What do you not like about CUinFP? So far all you say is you are against them. WHY?

    By Anonymous forest park citizen, at 3:53 PM, September 12, 2006  

  • Many people are against this group. Here's a few reasons:

    How about CUFP wants to force business and development out of town?

    How about they would drive the Village bankrupt?

    How about they are mean, nasty, divisive people?

    How about they never offer a solution to anything?

    How about they are hypocrites?

    How about they do nothing to build the community up?

    How about they are a bunch of opportunists?

    How about they show a complete ignorance of municipal government?

    How about they oppose virtually everything?

    By Anonymous Candid, at 4:42 PM, September 12, 2006  

  • Candid, will you offer me some of the stuff you are smoking? To me it's clear you are making it all up. ButI will give you a chance by backing up your preposterous assertions with some facts or examples.

    By Anonymous gusto, at 5:45 PM, September 12, 2006  

  • Candid, is everyone who has a different vision for development than the mayor anti-devolpment and anti-business, or just CUFP?

    What has CUFP advocated that would drive the village bankrupt?

    What has CUFP or its members done that is mean and nasty? Do you feel that dissent is something that should only be practiced in the ballot booth?

    Candid, have you been to all CUFP meetings? How can you say its never offered an alternative if you haven't consistently been part of the discussion?

    What do you mean by "build the community up"?

    On what issues is CUFP ignorant of municipal government?

    By Blogger Carl Nyberg, at 6:13 PM, September 12, 2006  

  • No need to attend a meeting. Why?
    Because all you need to do is study the several few who are the leaders of the pack.

    These folks are misleading, misguiding, cynical, snyde, disengenious, rude, presumptious, adn border evil.

    Backman the infamous leader of the pack has been mis leading the community at every chance he gets.

    This do gooder wanna be missed his chance by looing credibility a long time ago. Stealing web site names was the pinacle of his low effort to attempt to mask the real underlining of ther real Backman.

    Misguiding is his forte, and it is undisputable that he started the group regardless of the feeble and lame attempts by his Jim Jones followers.

    Give it up he is a looser and his clan.

    By Anonymous Candid Camera, at 12:01 AM, September 13, 2006  

  • Funny how Nyberg and Gusto(aka Goetz) defend the CUFP wackos by asking yet more questions. You asked what was wrong with CUFP. That was answered. No more questions. CUFP and their apologists are rotten to the core - no redeeming value.

    By Anonymous Candid, at 12:51 AM, September 13, 2006  

  • Goetz? Is this the same wacko that writes in the forest park review?

    For that matter do you ever read the coloums in the same location of the paper?

    Do they recruit these wackos from the same school?

    By Anonymous Candid Camera, at 10:01 AM, September 13, 2006  

  • Sorry candid but all I see are more questions asked by you. No answers. You say that was answered. Exactly where did that happen?

    By Anonymous forest park citizen, at 10:09 AM, September 13, 2006  

  • Candid and Candid Camera are two different people - many, many citizens - the vast, silent majority - support the progress made in the Village and hate the mean spirited, ignorant critics who just tear everything down. FP Citizen is just an old time Popelka supporter who just wants everything to be frozen in time, is afraid of change, and wants no progress to be made. Bitter, small people like FPC won't stop progress, and they won't stop FP from being the greatest little Village around.

    By Anonymous Candid, at 11:09 AM, September 13, 2006  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:19 AM, September 13, 2006  

  • Huh? FYI - I voted for Calderone in the election that defeated Popelka. Want everything frozen in time and no progress? If progress is building on every available inch of space in the village, then yes I am against that. If progress is having to give a variance for new construction because there is not enough parking according to the rules set by the village itself, then yes I must be against progress. I do not believe progress is tearing down 2 single family homes and cramming in 12 townhomes in that space. Just my opinion. I am entitled to it.

    Just curious if you believe that unchecked building is perfect for FP in your mind then. You'd love then how a building is cramming in a home (had to get a variance so now the brand new home is already non-conforming) and 2 1/2 car garage on a 25 ft. lot. The eaves on the second floor extend over the 2 1/2 foot clearance that should be there. If the home next door were 2 stories, they could touch at the gutters.

    By Anonymous forest park citizen, at 11:33 AM, September 13, 2006  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:27 PM, September 13, 2006  

  • Sorry anonymous but Cherryfield is looking for a whole boatload of variances. From the 3/20/06 ZBA Agenda: "E. ZBA 2006-09 504 Elgin Avenue: A public hearing on a request to construct a townhome in a R-3 Zoned District with variations to allow for a rowhome on each lot that is more than two (2) rooms deep; increase lot coverage from 40% to 47%; increase the number of dwelling units permitted from four (4) to six (6); to reduce the front and rear yard setbacks; and reduce the number of shade trees required on a lot.

    F. ZBA 2006-10 508 Elgin Avenue: A public hearing on a request to construct a townhome in a R-3 Zoned District with variations to allow for a rowhome on each lot that is more than two (2) rooms deep; increase lot coverage from 40% to 47%; increase the number of dwelling units permitted from four (4) to six (6); to reduce the front and rear yard setbacks; and reduce the number of shade trees required on a lot."

    The village needs to quit giving variances for EVERYTHING. If we need to keep giving variances, that means the codes either need to change or the people requesting need to be turned down!

    By Anonymous forest park citizen, at 9:07 AM, September 14, 2006  

  • So, Forest Park Citizen if the codes were changed would you be a supporter of that idea?

    By Anonymous Candid Camera, at 9:54 AM, September 14, 2006  

  • NO NO NO that could not happen otherwise thier would be nothing for "FOREST PARK RESIDENT" to complain about.

    Some people just bitch bitch and bitch more.

    Crabby apples

    By Anonymous Mother Hen, at 12:29 PM, September 14, 2006  

  • The action that the village council voted to deny Monday required no variances. No variances.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:12 PM, September 14, 2006  

  • That can't be because forest park citizen said it did so it must be right. Right?

    Silly just silly

    By Anonymous Dumb Ass, at 3:50 PM, September 14, 2006  

  • If we have zoning rules, why does the Mayor allow Hosty to live above his bar in a commercially zoned office where residential living is prohibited? The Mayor knows he is there in violation of zoning but will not do anything about it. I guess when you control the building department, the fire department and the police department,like Hosty, Gillian and Calderone do, you can raise goats and lamas in your yard as well. Is anything going to be done about it or is this just one of the privileges of being a majority member of the Mayor's goon squad. I guess it's good to be king, and good to be one of his pack mules as well.

    By Anonymous Never ceases to amaze, at 10:41 PM, September 14, 2006  

  • Well that explains the property Hosty bought on July 17 on Circle. I was wondering why he would buy something for $170,000. So he's living above the bar in a space that's supposed to be an office? Interesting. I too wonder why nothing is being done about it. Guess there is some truth to the rumor that he was getting a D - I - V - O - R - C - E

    By Anonymous hmmmmmmm, at 9:09 AM, September 15, 2006  

  • And this is one of Calderones coalition YES men. Calderone is the one that got Hosty elected. Ain't this priceless. Do the people of Forest Park see what a bunch of Serpico/Welch/Moore hacks these guys are? Time to take notice people. If all you care about is how nice things look, that the house you own is worth more than you paid for it and how great Madison street is, just wait. This is how the beginning of the end starts. When politicians are allowed to get away with this type of behavior, things will change rather quickly. Get these self-serving hacks out of office before it is to late. don't buy any more of their bullshit. They have learned from the best of the worst. Don't be fooled by Calderone and his goons.

    By Anonymous Nostradamus, at 10:23 AM, September 15, 2006  

  • I'm not a member of CUinFP or the other group that's against them. Never been to a meeting, but know folks who have. The statements regarding their agenda seem pretty far fetched. From their liturature and what I've heard, all they are is a Watch Dog group. If they were being anything else but that, I think we'd have found solid evidence about it by now.
    Saying they're going to destroy the village and all that other stuff sounds pretty paranoid and irrational to me. Before I buy into it, I'd need proof and not some wild accusations.

    By Anonymous Inquiring Mind, at 10:43 AM, September 15, 2006  

  • Still waiting for the factual data on CUFP. Lots of whooey but no facts? Stealing web names? Give us a break. At least Backmans's name as owner was there for all to see, unlike hiding behind others with lame excuses.

    By Anonymous cutthecrap, at 11:31 AM, September 15, 2006  

  • Never ceases is telling a bald faced lie about zoning on Madison Street. Here's what the Village Code says:


    In the DBD district, no building or land shall be used and no building shall be hereafter erected, converted, enlarged or structurally altered, except for one or more of the following uses. (The following named uses shall be deemed to include those uses or buildings in general keeping with, and appropriate to, the uses hereinafter specified):

    · Dwelling unit above ground floor retail, provided that no such dwelling unit may be less than 800 square feet....

    So having a residential unit above ground floor retail is expressly permitted.

    Stop the lies - you only damage your own credibility and the little left of CUFP, you filthy gossip mongerers.

    By Anonymous Candid, at 11:36 AM, September 15, 2006  

  • candid have you visited Hosty in his new over 800 square foot home above the bar?

    By Anonymous hmmmmmmm, at 1:08 PM, September 15, 2006  

  • Candid,
    You said the building is not zoned for residential. You were lying. Nuff said.

    By Anonymous Candid, at 2:14 PM, September 15, 2006  

  • I meant "hmmmm" was lying about the zoning.

    By Anonymous Candid, at 2:24 PM, September 15, 2006  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:23 PM, September 15, 2006  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:26 PM, September 15, 2006  

  • Residential above commercial is for sure a permitted use on Madison street but only if it existed before the zoning ordinance was in place or if you apply for and are granted a zoning variance. (as usual, the Mayors goons have no idea what they're talking about) Since that used to be a furniture store, there never was residential in the 1st place. Once you try to change it, you have to get the variance approved 1st for a change of use. When they changed that building from a furniture store to what it is today, they never got a variance to put residential there. In fact, they said they were not going to. Hosty took it upon himself, without a variation and under the cover of darkness and made it an apartment. His problem isn't that it's now been changed from an office to a residential condo, his problem is he never applied for a variance to do it. And Calderone knows it and won't do anything about it. That is until he sees all the heat now. He's know about it for months. Let's see if he can at least do the right thing now that the cat's out of the bag. I doubt it.

    By Anonymous ding dong, at 8:09 PM, September 15, 2006  

  • I delete posts under "anonymous".

    I do this b/c if more than one person is posting under "anonymous" in the same discussion it becomes confusing.

    Please create a Blogger account or use a pseudonym. Either select "other" when posting or incorporate the pseudonym into your post.

    Welcome to Proviso Probe and thanks for participating.

    By Blogger Carl Nyberg, at 8:12 PM, September 15, 2006  

  • Ding dong,
    You're just plain wrong. Residential uses are PERMITTED above first floor retail. You claim this residential is non-conforming and is only permitted if grandfathered in - that's just a bald faced lie. Get your facts straight. You lose all credibility otherwise.

    By Anonymous Tired, at 9:57 AM, September 16, 2006  

  • Is the location in question zoned for residential use?

    By Blogger Carl Nyberg, at 11:52 AM, September 16, 2006  

  • Carl, you might want to read through the thread before asking questions again - residential is permitted above street level retail - straight out of the zoning code. You shouldn't let your blog be used as a place for people telling obvious lies like they have been on this one. Then again, this blog has no credibility for factually accurate information. Shameful.

    By Anonymous Candid, at 3:56 AM, September 17, 2006  

  • One last time candid. Yes, the zoning on Madison has residential as a permitted use above commercial. The problem, and please listen, is that you cannot just change an existing commercial space into a residential space without a variance just because you feel like it. The change of use is what triggers the need for a variance. And, when any use is change to residential, it has to have the required two parking spaces per the code. If Hosty wanted to apply for a variance to change from commercial to residential, he is free to do that. The process would be to apply for a variance based on change of use and lack of parking. He didn't and that, candid, is why this stinks. When that guy Marani changed the building across the street on Madison from Hostys place, he changed it from apartments to condominiums. That is residential to residential. He needed to apply for a variance to do that. And that is the same basic use. So do us all a favor and why don't you do your homework and you stop telling obvious lies and you start rebuilding your credibility. Shameful.

    By Anonymous tired of you, at 10:39 AM, September 17, 2006  

  • tired of you,
    You just don't know what you're talking about. You're dead wrong about zoning law. Just quit while you're behind.

    The use is permitted SO NO VARIANCE IS REQUIRED! As to a parking variance - how do you know the residential use hasn't already shown proof of required zoning (the zoning code allows for this). Why don't you call the Commissioner and ask him instead of hurling out unfounded accusations.

    So spare your insults because you are the one who is WRONG, MISINFORMED, and MALICIOUS (no doubt a member of CUFP). Get a new hobby. One where you might actually know what you're talking about. Because it sure as hell isn't zoning or Forest Park or local government or telling the truth. Shame on you.

    By Anonymous Candid, at 12:34 PM, September 17, 2006  

  • meant required "parking" instead of required "zoning"

    By Anonymous candid, at 12:35 PM, September 17, 2006  

  • Well then let's put this to the test. Since neither side believes the other, why not have Hosty and the building schmuck articulate why it's OK for him to live there.

    If they truly believe there is no need for a variance let them tell us why at the next council meeting.

    And yes, Hosty has an obligation to let the public know.

    By Anonymous gusto, at 3:11 PM, September 17, 2006  

  • Hosty any anybody else for that matter hos no freekin responsibility to inform anybody based on some bullshit posted here.

    Gusto you of all people should read the law goofball.

    We all know you're opinionated.

    But your opinion doesn't make it right.

    In this case your wrong, wrong wrong. Belly up to the bar and have a beer, might clear your obstructed vision.

    By Anonymous Goofball, at 6:31 PM, September 17, 2006  

  • Well said, goofball. All fair minded intelligent people should just refrain from posting here. The dishonest, hypocritical malcontents will just have to shout at each other in their meaningless echo chamber. Shame on the Forest Park Review for employing the types of unethical slime like Nyberg and Gusto. Forest Park has so much better to offer - their 15 minutes is drawing to a close...Good bye.

    By Anonymous Candid, at 6:58 PM, September 17, 2006  

  • Please. Your cowardice shows even behind your veil of lies. Although I should be ashamed. I did vote for Hosty once. I actually thought he had integrity. But I was fooled, like many others.

    But the truth comes out no matter how loud and shrill the dim witted supporters of the coalition whine.

    Of course he won't comment. He has something to hide.

    By Anonymous gusto, at 7:31 PM, September 17, 2006  

  • Gusto you are almost there, yes you are dim witted, all CUFP people think because they think something it must be true.

    This is dim wittednedness.

    And because a CUFP er thinks an elected official might be doing something wrong and they spew it right her that some how or another the elected official should get up at an official meeting and debunk such wild allegations.

    You guys crack me up CUFP ers just like girls gone wild.

    Yep dim witted you are correct

    By Anonymous Sad but True, at 10:50 PM, September 17, 2006  

  • The Forest Park Review has long been a piece of shit news wipe.

    It is a sorry piece of rag sence.

    They can't afford any real writers so they have to stoop to the current 3 stooges, Nyberg, Goetz and Dwyer.

    At this stage they might be better off letting Dr. Jackson take all three of their places.

    By Anonymous Laughing Ass Off, at 11:21 PM, September 17, 2006  

  • Here is what cutthecrap says,

    Still waiting for the factual data on CUFP. Lots of whooey but no facts? Stealing web names? Give us a break. At least Backmans's name as owner was there for all to see, unlike hiding behind others with lame excuses.

    Yep you are right, a very lame excuss that backman used to try and wiggle his way out of a very undermined attempt to steal, steal and steal again. He got caught hans down

    By Anonymous Undercover CIA, at 11:25 PM, September 17, 2006  

  • You gals really need to learn how to spell. I realize that it's hard to see your era of rule in Forest Park is coming to and end, but end it will.

    Get used to it.

    But please keep posting. Maybe the Post will be exicted by all the four letter words in your vocabulary.

    By Anonymous gusto, at 6:21 AM, September 18, 2006  

  • Leaving aside the columnists, what's your beef with the Forest Park Review, laughing ass?

    The paper has garnered a large number of awards in the past couple years.

    What local newspaper does a better job than the Forest Park Review?

    By Blogger Carl Nyberg, at 9:29 AM, September 18, 2006  

  • Some of us are laughing our ass off so much that we type too fast and forget to check the spelling, but you get the point.

    The Forest Park Review besides the three stooges and been a lame paper for a long time, and those awards are lame also, like the Lisagor award, remember Bill Dwyer.

    In fact I think this last year they did not even give one because they could not find a paper worthy of it.

    But I'll bet if you ask the three stooges they would say the paper is great.

    By Anonymous Candice, at 9:58 AM, September 18, 2006  

  • Candice, what is the difference between the Forest Park Review and a good local paper?

    What should the Review do differently?

    By Blogger Carl Nyberg, at 10:28 AM, September 18, 2006  

  • Find some responsible writers who can report something beyond sarcasim and politics.

    Forest Park is more than politics.




    By Anonymous Candice, at 10:34 AM, September 18, 2006  

  • Do you understand the difference between columnists and news reporting?

    I understand you don't like the perspective of the columnists. There's not much point in discussing who is a good and a bad columnist because it's a matter of taste.

    But focus on the news reporting.

    What kind of stories get too much coverage? What kind of stories don't get enough coverage?

    What don't you like about the writing style of the Forest Park Review?

    By Blogger Carl Nyberg, at 10:43 AM, September 18, 2006  

  • You're right and the Review has bad taste.

    By Anonymous Candice, at 10:50 AM, September 18, 2006  

  • How is the Review not "responsible"?

    By Blogger Carl Nyberg, at 10:52 AM, September 18, 2006  

  • The Forest Park Review is not responsible by allowing the 3 stooges to report in the style and character that they do.

    Every newspaper has the right and option of determining who they allow to write. They have the option.

    In the current case they seem to like the soap box approach to writing, be it stories or columns.

    Some of of think it is jealousy between the Oak Parkers and Forest Park and since Dan Healy is a Oak Park resident it stands to reason.

    So what do they do?

    They find the likes of Carl, Dwyer, and Goetz who are perpetual rumor and gossip experts who throw shit against the wall without respect for resonable deciency.

    Proviso Probe is a classic example of poor reporting; example, "I heard this what do you think"

    I think you should do what every responsible reporter does and do your leg work, find the facts and then balance responsibility with non responsibility before you write.

    By Anonymous Candice, at 12:28 PM, September 18, 2006  

  • There's a big difference between the medium of a newspaper and a blog.

    There's one version of a newspaper each week.

    With a blog it's more of an ongoing discussion. Part of what makes blogs great sources of information is the ability to tap into what the audience knows.

    So, fishing for input from readers on a blog is using the two-way communication feature to enhance the total knowledge available.

    candid, what I'm getting from your responses is that you don't like my editorial perspective (or Goetz's or Dwyer's).

    But your criticisms are vague enough that I think it comes down to my politics are different than yours at the local level.

    By Blogger Carl Nyberg, at 2:05 PM, September 18, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home