[Please note - after publication, I was reminded that the Village Board does not have direct authority over stoplight decisions. So, I added a clarifying point to that section.]
I attended this week's Village Board meeting, and the full agenda — paired with a packed audience — served as a pointed reminder of just how difficult and thankless the job of trustee can be. These officials dedicate an enormous amount of time to preparing for and participating in bi-weekly meetings — this week’s agenda packet alone was nearly 2,200 pages. Collectively, the trustees' stipends cost each resident about $1.25 per year, and yet they typically only hear from the public when people are upset — about something the Board did, or something it’s considering. We should all be making a greater effort to thank these individuals for their civic service. Resident expectations often far exceed what we’re willing to contribute ourselves — in time, attention, or financial support.
At the same time, we’ve just come through an election where the winning slate set a remarkably high bar for performance. They touted polished plans, “proven” progress, and painted their opponents as disorganized and uncommitted to Northbrook. Their endorsements came not only from familiar local figures but also from a parade of outside politicians, lending their weight to what was supposed to be a nonpartisan race. The local Democratic Party placed its thumb on the scale to help push the slate across the finish line. And every trustee currently on the dais either ran for re-election or publicly supported that slate.
Most notably, not one of them has publicly denounced the divisive tone, inflammatory comments, or misleading tactics used throughout the campaign. The silence was deafening — and disappointing. Yes, there was nonsense on both sides, but we live in a world of nuance where it ought to be possible to support a slate while still holding them to a higher standard than their opponents.
So, I think it's fair for us — the residents — to hold this Board to the very highest expectations. They asked for that standard; they ran on it. Their claims of competence, experience, and unity far exceed what most communities our size even imagine expecting from local government. Maybe it’s unrealistic to expect perfection — but based on the rhetoric of the campaign, they’ve made it clear both implicitly and explicitly that the bar should be set remarkably close.
I’m obviously still a little bruised by how ugly the campaign became. And now, more than a week removed, even the smallest gesture of healing remains absent. No acknowledgment of the harm caused. No effort to rebuild trust. Maybe that's not surprising when 7 out of 10 registered voters stayed home — and perhaps the strategy is to let apathy do the cleanup work. But that’s my greatest worry: that good people will choose not to engage, not to run, not to speak up. Still, I know at least two residents already preparing for a run in 2027, both committed to rising above the tactics we just witnessed. So maybe — just maybe — not all hope is lost.
One area I’ll be watching closely in the coming months is commission appointments. At this meeting, three residents were appointed to the Arts Commission — a welcome development. By my rough count, that still leaves about eight open seats across Northbrook’s twenty official commissions, committees, and boards, with another 30+ appointments set to expire this month. That’s a lot of civic opportunity on the table.
I know from past conversations that some trustees feel real frustration about how few residents step forward to serve. And during the campaign, much was made about the importance of prior local government experience — a point used, repeatedly, to discredit the opposition slate. With that in mind, I hope this Board sees these open seats as a chance to demonstrate how seriously they take the value of inclusive and broad-based civic engagement. We should expect them to recruit well, elevate ethical and civic-minded voices, and fill these roles with people ready to bring real thought and energy to the table.
I’ve seen how this process works from the outside. When the trustee vacancy opened in late 2023, I submitted my name and received a form rejection email — nothing more. I’ll be the first to admit: I didn’t apply for a commission afterward. In part, that’s because it seemed clear my background or perspective didn’t resonate with what they were looking for — and that’s okay. But if a number of residents step forward and express interest in getting involved — as many did during that period — wouldn’t it stand to reason that the Board, especially given their frustration about the perceived lack of volunteers, might try to capitalize on that energy? It raises a broader question: Will this Board be intentional about seeking out new voices — not just those already closely aligned, but those who bring different experiences and are ready to contribute? I know that’s a taller order given the tone of the campaign, where a number of people might be turned off by the rhetoric and blatant politicization of our local government — but this is the job.
It’s also worth noting that there was a small but meaningful moment of accountability at this meeting. In response to public comments, the Village President acknowledged that the Village’s communication regarding the screening of Israelism at the Northbrook Public Library — and the related closure of Cedar Avenue and heavy public safety presence — was “late” and “avoidable.” It was an unusual moment of reflection, and after a campaign season full of finger-pointing and a reluctance to engage in real debate, even that modest admission stood out.
Whether it marks the start of a more transparent approach or proves to be an isolated instance remains to be seen. But it was a step in the right direction — and for now, I’ll choose to hope it’s not the last.
There was also encouraging news in the unveiling of next year’s Village budget. As a reminder, Northbrook’s fiscal year runs from May 1 to April 30, so we are now preparing for FY’26. As I’ve written before, sales tax is the Village’s single largest source of revenue, making up roughly 30% of the General Fund. And despite some borderline false claims made during the campaign, the reality is that sales tax revenues have been relatively flat over the past five years — buoyed in part by a 2022 policy change that allowed the Village to begin collecting tax on online purchases.
“Flat” isn’t failure — especially when you consider the impact of COVID and the steady decline of Northbrook Court. But this year, the numbers are finally moving in a more positive direction. As of now, we are up about 8% in sales tax revenue year-over-year for FY’25. And next year’s forecast is even stronger: revenue is expected to reach approximately $19.5 million — up from a projected $17.9 million in FY’25, and just under $17 million in FY’24 (which itself had dipped from FY’23).
There were also two notable development projects discussed at this meeting.
The first was a preliminary review for a proposed expansion at Highland Baking Company, located at 2301 Shermer Road. Highland has been operating in Northbrook since 2006 and has gradually grown its footprint over the years. The latest proposal includes a 33,000 square-foot addition at the southeast corner of the property — a fully automated freezer storage facility that would be staffed by just one or two existing employees.
While the plan complies with all bulk, setback, and FAR requirements, the proposed structure would stand 75 feet tall — exceeding the 55-foot height limit for the I-2 Light Industrial zoning district. That triggers the need for a major variation, which is now under review.
It’s worth emphasizing that this is not a speculative proposal or a shift in use. Highland Baking is a stable and growing employer in a part of town specifically zoned for industrial production. A detailed parking analysis completed by Village staff in 2020 — and still applicable today — confirmed that the site’s 252 spaces are sufficient. Stormwater will be managed through an expansion of the existing detention pond. All told, this appears to be a well-considered, technically sound project from a business with deep local roots. While it still needs to move through the formal development process, based on what was presented, it’s hard to imagine this won’t receive broad support.
The most spirited discussion of the evening surrounded The Reserve at the Brook, a proposed 53-unit age-restricted townhome development at 3700 Dundee Road — the former site of Our Lady of the Brook Church.
The project, proposed by Venture One, would include two- and three-unit buildings, all targeted to residents aged 55 and older. Each townhome would feature a two-car garage and a driveway with space for two additional cars, plus 38 guest parking spaces distributed throughout the site. The estimated property tax impact is around $1 million annually. The development includes three landscaped gathering areas and will be governed by a homeowners’ association responsible for maintaining shared spaces and landscaping. Stormwater will be managed on-site, and the overall density remains below the Village’s 0.44 FAR cap.
Eight of the 53 units will be designated as affordable housing in accordance with Northbrook’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance — four for households below 80% of the area median income (AMI) and four between 80% and 120%. The affordable units will be built on slab foundations (without basements) as a cost-management strategy and were originally proposed to be grouped into three buildings throughout the site. CPAH (Community Partners for Affordable Housing) will assist with marketing the affordable units, which will carry deed restrictions to ensure long-term affordability. Market-rate units are expected to list in the mid-$700,000s to upper-$800,000s.
There’s a lot to like about the proposal — it adds to the tax base, brings new consumers to local businesses, expands the Village’s affordable housing stock, and is unlikely to significantly impact local schools. Still, it’s sparked concern among residents of the neighboring Charlemagne subdivision.
The current plan includes a connection to Anjou Drive at the northern edge of the development — a connection that has technically always existed. But with a church previously on the property, traffic only peaked once or twice a week and rarely during school hours. With a full-time residential community now proposed, Charlemagne residents worry the character and volume of traffic will shift, particularly during peak school commute times.
Those concerns first surfaced during the preliminary review last October, when the Village Board — unusually — allowed public comment before a formal application had even been submitted. A representative from the Charlemagne HOA expressed support for the project overall but insisted on the installation of a gate at Anjou Drive to preserve pedestrian safety and reduce through-traffic. He cited similar access restrictions in other developments, such as Anets Woods, Ivy Club, Constance Lane, and Picardy Circle. While trustees broadly supported the proposal, two did note a preference for connected neighborhoods. They asked the Plan Commission to explore traffic, safety, and the possibility of gates more thoroughly.
When the proposal made it to the Plan Commission in February, Village staff stated that the Board had determined full access should be maintained and that no gate was warranted. This created some confusion — I thought the Board hadn’t explicitly rejected a gate, only asked for further evaluation. During that meeting, the developer confirmed they had discussed installing a Knox Box-style emergency gate with the Charlemagne HOA back in 2023, but ultimately decided against including it in the proposal, citing the Village’s preference for connected neighborhoods. Instead, they proposed traffic signage as a compromise. One commissioner expressed a clear preference for the gate and received a round of applause from residents in attendance.
During public comment, several residents again raised concerns, including traffic, safety, and consistency with past gated developments. The Chair paused the session to ask for staff clarification. Staff reiterated that police, fire, engineering, and the Village’s traffic consultant all agreed full access was appropriate. They also noted that the proposal never formally included a gate.
The Plan Commission ultimately approved the project 5–0, with several members noting lingering discomfort about the lack of a gate. The approval with reservation was sent to the Village Board.
As an aside, at this same meeting, the developer expressed frustration with the pricing restrictions on affordable units — another topic that might warrant deeper reflection by the Board, especially as they look to expand affordable housing options. I say this as someone who supports more affordable housing in Northbrook, but also believes the current strategy can feel more performative than practical.
The Board picked the proposal up at the April 8 meeting. They reviewed the full package of the proposal — a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning to R-6 residential, a special permit for an age-restricted development, and a resolution adopting the development concept plan and tentative subdivision. Two updates had been made: the affordable units were more evenly distributed across the site, and the developer added a broader color palette to the building designs.
But nothing had changed with the Anjou Drive connection. One trustee raised this right away, noting that the Board had received quite a bit of community feedback and suggesting there may have been a breakdown in communication. Staff clarified that, in response to Plan Commission concerns, village leadership and emergency services had met with the developer and ultimately recommended full access be maintained. Both the Police and Fire Chiefs attended the meeting and confirmed their strong preference against gated access, citing delays in emergency response and coordination problems with mutual aid agencies. The last gate approved in Northbrook was Anets Woods in 2016; most others date back to the 1970s–90s.
Trustees also asked about complaints from Northbrook’s existing gated neighborhoods. Staff acknowledged there’s no repository that houses this feedback all in one place, but anecdotally, challenges include gate maintenance burdens on HOAs, confusion for delivery drivers, and navigation issues with GPS systems that don’t recognize restricted roads.
The Village President pressed for alternatives, acknowledging that residents clearly felt unheard. She noted her own preferences, in part formed iving near Waukegan and Walters during the Anets Woods construction and noted that the decision not to open additional access there had likely spared her neighborhood additional traffic. It was clear that there was no agreed upon standard for this scenario.
It’s also worth noting: this wasn’t the first proposal for this site. Previous developments were rejected for excessive density and potential adverse impacts — particularly on Charlemagne. It is fair to say that, if this proposal was rejected, there is likely no development which could possibly be approved on this site.
Ultimately, after hearing more public comment, the Board approved the version of the plan presented to them, unanimously. No gate. It was clear they were wrestling with how to weigh hypothetical traffic concerns against the very real complications that gated access creates. At the President’s urging, staff was directed to conduct a traffic study in Charlemagne after the new development reaches critical mass.
Charlemagne residents were visibly frustrated by the decision — and it’s not hard to see why. The process felt muddled. There was precedent for their request. And it didn’t seem like the Board had a clear, principle-based position on the issue – especially given how favorable the Plan Commission seemed to their requests. If restricted access is seemingly frowned upon by public safety leaders and our board, that should be codified. Still, I found it encouraging to see the Board debate openly, display some internal disagreement, and wrestle with a complicated question in public. In the end, I think they landed in the right place — though the broader questions about planning, precedent, and traffic management will require a bigger-picture conversation moving forward.
First, this concern isn’t unique to Charlemagne — we’re seeing versions of it all over town. We live near Greenbriar, and every morning and afternoon we watch cars clog the narrow streets, many trying to shave 30 seconds off their school drop-off or pickup routine. These aren’t just harmless detours — we see far too many drivers speeding down our side streets past kids on bikes or families walking to school, seemingly without a second thought. And if it’s bad here, it’s clearly worse near Northbrook Junior High and Glenbrook North. The volume is heavier, the chaos more routine, and frankly, the worst of humanity’s driving instincts seem to show up like clockwork.
These are daily realities in Northbrook — not abstractions. And as we grow, as we introduce new developments and greater density in certain parts of town, this problem is only going to get more complicated. There are no perfect solutions, but the Board is going to need to start thinking about how we manage these tradeoffs — and how to do it consistently, with a clear set of principles.
Second, as I drove through Charlemagne to investigate for myself, the condition of the roads stood out. If I lived there, I’d be raising serious questions about when those streets are due for attention. That, paired with a street layout that seems intentionally designed to discourage through traffic, may ultimately do more to deter cut-through drivers than signage or policy ever could. Yes, residents say it’s already used as a shortcut — and I’m not questioning that — but once the new development is built, there’s a chance that most residents will find it easier and faster to enter and exit on Dundee anyway. The idea of adding a stoplight on Dundee at the main entrance to the development was rejected early in the process – assumingly because of impact to traffic flow on Dundee – but I do wonder if that would also help convince residents of the development to favor Dundee even more. [Note: Just to clarify — the Village Board does not have direct authority over stoplight decisions. My earlier phrasing may have implied otherwise. There is a valid question about the influence they could exert on such matters, but that’s a broader discussion for another time.]
It’s in meetings like this one — with full chambers, contentious issues, no obvious solutions — that the real weight of serving on the Village Board becomes clear. The job is hard. The meetings are long. The preparation intense. The criticism comes quickly, and the gratitude rarely follows. But this is what leadership looks like: sitting with complexity, listening through frustration, and trying to chart a path that considers not just the loudest voices in the room, but the long-term interests of the entire community.
And while the campaign is behind us, its promises still echo. This Board – both those who ran and those who publicly endorsed – ran on experience, unity, and progress. They asked us to trust their vision, their discipline, their commitment to doing the work. That trust now has to be re-earned, meeting by meeting, vote by vote — not with perfection, but with integrity, thoughtfulness, and an openness to differing views. It’s not enough to avoid missteps. The opportunity is to model something better.
In the months ahead, I can only hope that more residents will be watching. Some of us will cheer. Others will criticize. But the hope — at least mine — is that we keep showing up. That more people raise their hands. That civic engagement continues to grow, not shrink, even when it’s messy. Because in the end, what happens in that room matters. And it deserves our full attention.