PlatFORM Group VP Ron Clewer Responds to Rockford City Council Denying 180 New Dwelling Units

I’ve really been bothered by the recent lack of discussion and the vote to turn down 180 units of rental housing on the Fincham project. If you missed the news, here are some clips:

• Rock River Current – City Council rejects proposal to build 180 housing units in east Rockford
• WIFR News – Rockford developer pushes for duplex approval as neighbors question project
• Wrex News – Potential new apartments coming to Rockford’s East Side near Fincham Drive
• RRSTAR – Rockford rejects proposal for duplexes and apartments on city’s eastside

Since Tuesday’s (09/02/2025) vote, and as a “houser” to my core, the decision has weighed heavy on me. Maybe it’s because years ago, I was among a group who tried put apartment deals together on that same site; developments that were denser than this proposed development – simply meaning I know the intent of that development when it was platted decades ago, and the news triggered past frustrations of not getting the project done. Or maybe it’s because the city has adopted a housing strategy, and then seemed not to follow it? Or maybe it’s because the vote doesn’t smell right? Or maybe it’s because, as a community, we have a history of being inconsistent in our policies and practices? Tonight I’ve reconciled, it’s all the above and I just need to follow my gut.

My smell test

1) The City of Rockford, IL, adopted a comprehensive Housing Strategy Framework in early 2025, aiming to create and preserve 6,000 to 9,000 housing units. This framework focuses on coordinating public and private resources, developing more housing, preserving existing stock, revitalizing vacant properties, and fostering community support to ensure access to diverse and affordable housing options across the city. That just passed a few months ago.

2) Prior to the passage of this housing strategy, specifically in November of last year, Council approved another development west of this site along S. Mulford. 220 living units were approved in that project, along with commercial and office uses. It seems that project will be much like this project if both had the opportunity to be built. Why did this proposal pass and Fincham did not? (pages 281-328 of the 11/18/2024 Council Packet)

3) The Fincham site(s) are predominantly zoned C2 which allows for duplex and apartment units under a special use permit, like the Mulford site although the Mulford site commercial zoned component was a more restrictive C1 zoning. (pages 193-207 of the 9/2/2025 Council Packet)

4) Both developers applied for special use permits. Given the similarities, especially since both project’s staff recommendations, Zoning Board of Appeals approvals, and Codes and Regulations approvals seemed to be near exactly the same, yet one was approved, and the other was denied? Why? Why – especially when both developments’ “Findings of Fact” were identical – I mean the city language was word for word identical and both led to the staff, board, and committee approvals.

5) The Fincham property fell apart at the city council level – and with NO DISCUSSION other than a question on fire station location, and support from the alderman to pass the project.

---

Shouldn’t these projects be viewed for the same merit, findings of fact, and prior approvals? YES.

I’m no attorney, and am not practicing law here, but I recently learned about the LaSalle factors. It seems the developer’s legal counsel, or maybe to protect our city from possible legal action, City legal should consider these recent actions of Council, my above smell test concerns, and the following on the LaSalle factors.

In Illinois, when a city council (or other local legislative body) is deciding a zoning case—such as a rezoning petition or a challenge to an existing zoning classification—it must consider the LaSalle factors as part of its decision-making process, because courts will review the council’s decision under those same factors if challenged. Here’s what that means in practice:

How Illinois City Councils Must Consider the LaSalle Factors

---

Use and Zoning of Nearby Property
The council should examine how the surrounding area is zoned and actually being used (residential, commercial, industrial, mixed-use, etc.).

A zoning decision that is inconsistent with the established character of the neighborhood may be viewed as arbitrary unless justified by a public purpose.

---

Diminution of Property Value
They should consider evidence (often presented through appraisers or expert testimony) about whether keeping the current zoning causes a significant drop in property value.

While loss of value alone doesn’t make a zoning decision invalid, a substantial loss without a corresponding public benefit can weigh against the existing zoning.

---

Public Welfare Purpose
The council must connect its decision to legitimate public health, safety, morals, or general welfare goals.

This can include things like traffic safety, preserving neighborhood character, environmental protection, or infrastructure capacity.

---

Relative Gain to Public vs. Hardship to Owner
The council should weigh how much benefit the public receives from keeping the existing zoning versus how much harm (financial or practical) the owner suffers.

This balancing test helps prevent situations where zoning decisions place an unreasonable burden on one property owner for minimal public gain.

---

Suitability of the Property for Zoned Purposes
The council should assess whether the property can realistically be developed under the current zoning.

If the land cannot be used as zoned, that supports rezoning; if it can, that supports keeping the zoning as is.

---

Length of Time Property Has Remained Vacant
Long-term vacancy under existing zoning can indicate that the zoning is not appropriate or market-feasible.

However, vacancy alone is not conclusive—it must be considered with the other factors.

---

Practical Obligation
No single factor is controlling — the city council must consider all relevant factors as a whole.

Their decision must be supported by a rational basis and tied to the public interest to withstand judicial review.

Councils often make a record of considering these factors (through staff reports, planning commission recommendations, and public hearings) so that if the decision is challenged in court, there is clear evidence of reasoned decision-making.

---

You know how else City Councils make record before a major vote like this decision? They have public discussions on the council floor. That’s transparency.

Again, this just doesn’t smell right and as a resident of Rockford, I believe we all deserve to understand why 9 members were against the development – especially if they may have just opened the door to possible litigation.

It is for a history of votes like this, ones that disregard the merits of a project, the findings of fact, the staff recommendations, the Zoning approvals, and the committee approvals, that the PlatFORM Group, for which I disclose my board position as VP, felt the need to sign up with the national YIMBY ACTION organization and open a local Chapter. This past May, we signed up and have worked to launch Rockford Area YIMBY – Yes in My Back Yard. Cat Valdez and Nate Jordan stand with me in leadership of this group. It is our hope that we can align our pro-housing, pro-growth residents and squelch the negative voices of the NIMBYs – or those Not in My Back Yard folks.

For a little extra… This WIFR video, New group pushes for ‘abundant,’ pro-housing policies in Rockford area, provides a bit more about our launch and our beliefs and the story written and provided with the video adds more depth. Over the coming weeks, Rockford Area YIMBY will be asking questions about the similarities and differences between these two complementary projects and these two very different outcomes.

---

---