Proposed lakefront regulations stir up trouble in Winnetka

A new chapter is unfolding in the controversy over a billionaire’s purchase and consolidation of multiple properties along the Lake Michigan shoreline in Winnetka for the purpose of building a huge mansion.

Justin Ishbia, who already owns five parcels along the lake, is willing to exchange one of those parcels — at 261 Sheridan Road — with the Park District in exchange for a 70-foot piece of beach property. The Park District would use its newly acquired property to connect two nearby parks and turn them into one, a project that has been dreamed of for decades.

Last week tensions flared between the village and Park District, two of the many government entities that are stakeholders in the dispute, over proposed ordinances aimed at protecting the lakefront.

At a special meeting on July 5, members of the Park District Board considered voting to protest the creation of a lakefront preservation overlay district that would impact publicly owned land in the village. The board also considered opposing a nine-month hold on lakefront construction.

“I would argue that this is very pointed and that this is very discriminatory. This is pointed specifically to the sole remaining project that remains to be permitted. I believe it is very specific and pointed to us,” Park District Christina Codo said of the plan to rebuild Elder and Centennial beaches.

The new ordinances are the next step in a process that began earlier this year with study sessions hosted by the village to see what authority it has over the lakefront. Recent permitting changes made by the village require lakefront development go through the village as well as county and federal permitting agencies. This adds another step for all lakefront construction and potentially extends the time it takes for permits to be approved.

The vote to file a protest against the proposed ordinances couldn’t be held after Commissioners Colleen Root and Cynthia Rapp left the meeting. With only three other commissioners in attendance, a quorum was lost and the meeting had to be adjourned.

Root spoke at the Village Council meeting the next day, saying she and Rapp walked out not to end the quorum but in the interest of intergovernmental cooperation.

“I am all about working together, hand in hand, finding ways to overcome differences,” she said. “We have differences, we can work them out ... I thought, personally, it (the protest vote) was extremely wrong.”

If the protest vote had gone forward and passed, Village Council would have needed four yes votes to pass the ordinances. Codo said even if a protest doesn’t change much, she wanted to file one out of principle because she feels the ordinances would constrain Park District work.

Village President Chris Rintz said during the July 6 Village Council meeting that the overlay district would only apply to publicly owned property on the lakefront. This would include all of the Park District-managed parks and beaches in the village as well as street end beaches such as Cherry Lane Beach.

“It’s become clear to me that these open spaces are becoming less and less available to us and it’s becoming more and more important to us to spend our days here in the village with good access to the lake,” Rintz said.

He said the ordinance is meant to reassure residents that if lakefront properties exchange hands, there is an extra process in place to ensure they are kept open to the public.

Winnetka Community Development Director David Schooner said the overlay would only be used if public land were to be sold or gifted to a private owner. The land would then become a regulated property and only certain uses of the land would be allowed. To build a home on the property, the new owner would have to apply for a special use permit.

Former Park District Board President Joe Dooley spoke out against the overlay district saying it would only apply to the portion of Centennial Park that Ishbia would receive if the land swap were completed.

“If you make it unpalatable for him to give that 70 feet of beach to the Park District, because when he gets his 70 feet it will now be regulated, what you have done — even though you maybe don’t think you have — is to discriminatorily carve out the only piece of the public beaches that will ever become private,” he said.

Another proposed ordinance would place a nine-month moratorium on lakefront construction in order to give village trustees the chance to study the impacts of construction on the bluffs. The reasoning behind this ordinance, according to Rintz, is the ongoing concerns residents have about the construction at Ishbia’s property, which has seen the bluffs essentially bulldozed and removed. Residents have said they worry that the process will be repeated all along the lakefront and cause a mass destabilization of the bluffs, putting lakefront property and public land at risk.

“Until recently, we never imagined that you could assemble three to four acres of individual properties on the lakefront and consolidate them and build a significantly large house and dominate a large portion of the lakefront,” Rintz said. “That’s a possibility now so we have to think a little bit differently about what’s happening on the lakefront.”

Schooner explained this would only impact property in the steep slope zone, which includes the area 40 feet back from the toe of the bluff. The ordinance would also only apply to new construction, meaning the ongoing development on Ishbia’s property would be permitted to continue.

“What we have is a solution to that problem, an ordinance that does not apply to Mr. Ishbia and his project, but that does apply to lots and lots of lakefront property owners who have been good stewards to the lakefront as well as the bluff,” lakefront homeowner Phil Beck said.

Lakefront residents came out to object to the ordinance with many expressing concern that their homes lie within the buffer zone from the bluff. Others were concerned they wouldn’t be able to complete work on the bluffs such as the removal of invasive species.

Eric Falk moved to the village six years ago but was unaware when he bought his property that the bluff was failing. It took two years for the bluff to be fully restored.

“If you push people off who have been doing this by nine months, I think we have real risk and they have real risk to their houses,” he said.

Board trustees assured residents that emergency repairs would be exempted from the moratorium and the 40 feet would not impact renovations planned in their homes.

Bridget Orsic, the newest Village Trustee, said while she realizes this seems sudden to residents, this has been a topic of discussion in the village for about three years.

“Of all the villages, our protections are none really. Everybody has more zoning restrictions than we do. Everybody has a bluff plan except for us,” Orsic said. “We’re trying to protect everybody’s properties. All of our property values rely on the lakefront ... if we don’t do something to protect the bluff, your house could fail.”

Lakefront homeowner Katie Stevens echoed Orsic during her comments saying Winnetka needs to catch up with neighboring villages to manage its bluffs.

“I want to say to all the people that are homeowners, we’re a team. But right now, this village is not a team,” she said. “I commend every one of you that has redone their bluff. Every one of you. Because that is what this is about, keeping the bluff. Not clear cutting it. Not taking it out. Not going to the waterline.”

Trustees agreed the ordinances are a good start but more tweaking, including consideration of the length of the moratorium and language regarding what construction will be permitted, needs done before a final vote is held. A final vote on the ordinances is expected to be included in the July 18 Village Council meeting.