Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular MeetingWinnetka, IL · March 9, 2026
Minutes
Minutes adopted 04.13.2026
1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
2 MARCH 9, 2026
3
4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman
5 Mark Haller
6 Lynn Hanley
7 Kathryn Leister
8 Mike Nielsen
9 Michael Ritter
10 Todd Vender
11
12 Zoning Board Members Absent: None
13
14 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Director of Community Development
15 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community
16 Development
17
18 Village Attorney: Peter Friedman
19
20 Call to Order & Roll Call:
21 Chairman Bradley called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Board Members
22 present.
23
24 Public Comment:
25 No comments were made at this time.
26
27 Approval of Meeting Minutes.
28 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to approve the February 9, 2026, meeting minutes. A motion to
29 approve the February 9, 2026, meeting minutes was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Ritter. A
30 vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
31 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender
32 NAYS: None
33
34 Community Development Report.
35 Mr. Mangum stated there is no Community Development Report.
36
37 Continued Cases:
38 a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: An application seeking approval of a
39 Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach. The Village Council has final
40 jurisdiction on this request. This item was continued from the February 9, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals
41 meeting.
42 Ms. Klaassen provided a summary of the prior presentation of the matter as well as a detailed summary
43 of the Village approval process. She stated due to the fact that the property is located along Lake Michigan,
44 it is subject to the lakefront construction ordinance and the steep slope regulations. Ms. Klaassen noted
45 the proposed fencing is not located within the steep slope zone; it is located east of the toe of the bluff
46 with the lakefront construction regulations giving the Village the authority to review and approve
47 improvements along, adjacent to and within the lake that require permits from the U.S. ACOE, IDNR,
48 MWRD and the Illinois EPA. She then summarized the Public Trust Doctrine.
March 9, 2026 Page 2
1 Ms. Klaassen then identified the property’s location, zoning classification and explained that public parks
2 and recreation facilities are allowed as a special use in the R-2 district. She also noted that given the
3 property remained under public ownership, the Lakefront Preservation Overlay District regulations
4 currently do not apply but would apply should the ownership of any part of the public park and beach
5 become privately owned. Ms. Klaassen referred to images of the beach in illustrations taken during
6 various times of the year.
7
8 Ms. Klaassen stated in response to comments made at the January 28, 2026, Plan Commission meeting,
9 the applicant submitted an amended plan and summarized its comparison to the prior plan with the
10 purpose of the fencing to provide an enclosure to allow dogs to be off leash year round. She described
11 the revised fencing plan and its access to the beach. Ms. Klaassen also summarized the linear footage of
12 the proposed dog beach and the remaining portion of the beach being used as a passive beach, as well as
13 the intended staffing of the passive beach. She then summarized the parking on site and the policies
14 currently in place regarding parking and the possible restrictions the Park District has suggested. Ms.
15 Klaassen summarized the amended plan which included the addition of a west fence 4 feet in height and
16 a gate system located 12 feet from the existing sea wall to allow the public to traverse the beach without
17 entering the dog area. She also summarized the south fence’s length and location in detail. Ms. Klaassen
18 referred to a detailed illustration of the north fence and the ordinary high water mark and the definition
19 of the front yard setback and the requirements in that regard. She also referred to an illustration of the
20 south fence.
21
22 Ms. Klaassen summarized the January 28, 2026, Plan Commission’s consideration of the special use permit
23 and its recommendation of denial. She stated the DRB is tentatively scheduled to consider a Certificate of
24 Appropriateness at its March 26, 2026, meeting and once all three advisory bodies have completed their
25 reviews, the Village Council would then consider the request. Ms. Klaassen summarized the Board’s role
26 in reviewing the application with the standards included on page 22 of the agenda packet. She noted the
27 additional public correspondence that was received was distributed by email this afternoon and hard
28 copies are provided on the dais. Ms. Klaassen stated following the applicant’s presentation, public
29 comment and Board discussion, the Board may decide to act on a recommendation to direct the Village
30 staff and Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation with or without conditions and written
31 findings and determinations for consideration at a subsequent meeting or direct the applicant or Village
32 staff to provide additional information. She then asked if there were any questions.
33
34 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. Ms. Hanley asked since the applicant provided
35 the amended application, would they have to go back before the Plan Commission. Ms. Klaassen
36 responded the Plan Commission made a recommendation of denial on the original application and were
37 not interested in seeing an amended plan. She stated the amended plan would be presented to the DRB
38 unless there are further changes as a result of the Board’s meeting. No additional questions were raised
39 at this time.
40
41 Chairman Bradley asked for the applicant's presentation and swore in those speaking to this matter. Hal
42 Francke of Meltzer Purtill & Stelle began by summarizing the conversation with regard to the amended
43 plan and the suggestion to the Plan Commission to allow the presentation of a revised plan. He referred
44 to the PowerPoint presentation and identified their presentation outline which included a background
45 review of the project, applicable laws and regulations, the history of the Centennial Dog Beach, the
46 purpose of the current project and fencing, the state of additional permits for which they have applied,
47 address the issues that arose as a result of the Public Trust Doctrine and why the special use standards
48 have been satisfied by the current application.
March 9, 2026 Page 3
1 Mr. Francke summarized the request to install fencing to create an off leash dog beach area with the goal
2 to allow everyone to allow their dogs to run recreationally off leash and which did not involve the need
3 for any zoning variations. He stated they are attempting to be in conformance with the Winnetka leash
4 law with violators being subject to fines. Mr. Francke also stated Cook County regulations require dog
5 parks to be fully enclosed as well as for the dog beach to have a security element.
6
7 Costa Kutulas, Winnetka Park District Director of Parks and Maintenance, began by summarizing the
8 project plan purpose and conformance with the regulations. Mr. Francke mentioned the various Village
9 and governing body standards. He summarized the dog beach’s history, leash law adoption and the fence
10 installation which was done six years ago. Mr. Kutulas summarized the Master Plan adoption and the
11 creation of the Dog Beach Advisory Committee and the steps taken with regard to the dog beach location
12 and reopening of Centennial Beach. He summarized the prior plan’s consideration and the amended plan
13 which addressed the various concerns raised.
14
15 Mr. Kutulas referred to an illustration which outlined the number of dog beach users over various periods
16 of time, the number of passes sold and hours of operation. He then provided information with regard to
17 the new fence addition which would allow beach users to access the beach without traversing through
18 the dog beach. Mr. Kutulas stated there would be a stand-alone fence system which would utilize the
19 existing infrastructure for the proposed fences and provide for its removal during the offseason in winter
20 months. He then described how the electronic key fob system would function and their plans to update
21 signage.
22
23 Mr. Kutulas described how the site on the north portion was reduced in half with the beach set to be a
24 passive human beach without swimming as it has operated in the past. He stated they still planned to
25 maintain parking as previously proposed and noted the subject was brought up with their Park Board. Mr.
26 Kutulas then referred to the suggestions of special conditions being imposed in terms of parking
27 limitations if it is determined necessary after the proposed operation had begun. He referred to
28 illustrations of the existing dog beach, the area to be fenced off, the northern passive beach and the 12-
29 foot bypass as well as drone images.
30
31 Mr. Kutulas then identified the Alternate Plan 1 approved by their Park Board and included in the packet.
32 He confirmed that in the amended plan with regard to the north fence line, they attempted to maximize
33 the views as much as possible by following the beach contour along with the fencing and referred to
34 several illustrations which outlined the proposal in detail. Mr. Kutulas noted the survey would be updated
35 in the near future. He then explained several illustrations of the improvements in significant detail. Mr.
36 Kutulas also explained how the safety concerns were addressed, which allowed them to maintain all of
37 the required standards.
38
39 Mr. Francke stated with regard to the Public Trust Doctrine and permit conditions issued to the owner of
40 205 Sheridan Road and the IDNR and Village permits for the 205 Sheridan Road improvements; he referred
41 to the reference to allowing continual public access to the shoreline. He explained how the proposed
42 route of access made the most sense in terms of public safety. Mr. Francke then summarized the manner
43 in which the amended plan satisfactorily responded to the special use standards and asked for the Board
44 to recommend approval of the plan.
45
46 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Ms. Hanley questioned peak season
47 usage. Mr. Kutulas provided information with regard to entry/exit for pass usage. He stated currently, on
48 leash is required and there is signage which is not currently enforced with them exploring enforcement
March 9, 2026 Page 4
1 options. Ms. Hanley asked if most Winnetka parks are considered on leash dog parks. Mr. Kutulas
2 responded any park site with a playground did not permit dogs on leash and provided additional
3 information with regard to on leash and off leash dog parks. He also provided information with regard to
4 three beach sites which were considered for dog beach parks and explained the location and its
5 evolvement in terms of their Master Plan.
6
7 Mr. Haller asked if any statistics were maintained with regard to how long a person occupied the beach.
8 Mr. Kutulas stated the average length of user time was not specifically obtained and estimated the usage
9 to be 1-1.5 hrs. Mr. Haller asked once the fence is installed, would it be an exclusive area for pass owners.
10 Mr. Kutulas confirmed that is correct and provided the percentages for resident and non-resident users.
11 He explained how the gate at the top of the bluff would be electronically controlled and would not be
12 staffed. Mr. Kutulas further explained how the controlled access gates would operate and how authorized
13 fob owners would access the beach. Mr. Haller asked when the steel groin at the south end was created.
14 Mr. Kutulas estimated it may have been installed in the 1950’s. He also explained how access to the stairs
15 needed to be permitted. Mr. Kutulas added all signage would be addressed and they would work with the
16 Village in that regard.
17
18 Mr. Ritter asked if a fob is needed to exit. Mr. Kutulas confirmed a fob is not needed for exit. Ms. Leister
19 referred to the modular chain link fencing and if it would extend to the high water mark. Mr. Kutulas
20 confirmed its location. Ms. Leister asked if they considered moving the fence portion to the high water
21 mark as it changes to preserve the view. Mr. Kutulas responded their consideration was driven by Cook
22 County regulations for fencing and that views were part of the consideration.
23
24 Chairman Bradley asked when was the last time a formal survey was done by the Park District in terms of
25 feedback. Mr. Kutulas explained how their Master Plan was recently completed which included surveys.
26 Chairman Bradley asked if they had Village feedback that an off leash dog beach is a top priority for the
27 Park District. Mr. Kutulas explained in detail how the feedback was obtained in terms of how the dog
28 beach evolved with it being a consistent theme as a preference from the community to identify the best
29 location for it. He also explained how beaches are categorized and considered as passive beaches.
30 Chairman Bradley asked if the plan is considered to be temporary in connection with the Elder Beach
31 development. Mr. Kutulas stated they received direction from their Park Board and are still working
32 through that concept. Chairman Bradley referred to the stairway access point which he described as a
33 choke point. Mr. Kutulas informed the Board they planned to have attendants to mitigate any concerns
34 with the beach being accessed by a sole staircase. Chairman Bradley stated this situation of people and
35 dogs using the same access point would create a public safety concern issue. Mr. Francke stated in
36 response of the 2% of people who would want the dog park, he explained the amount of caucus
37 participants and referred to the number of people who live in the Village. He also referred to the court
38 case which stated park districts are subject to local zoning regulations and summarized their
39 interpretation.
40
41 Chairman Bradley referred to an illustration of the revised proposed fence placement. Mr. Kutulas
42 explained the reasoning for the fence placement which related to safety, requirements and maintenance.
43 Chairman Bradley stated a special use can’t be approved that requires trespass. Mr. Francke stated with
44 regard to any concerns relating to trespassing, the Board could require it be addressed with a condition
45 that an easement be granted. He added the access issue had already been addressed by the Village and
46 the IDNR.
47
March 9, 2026 Page 5
1 Chairman Bradley then referred to parking and questioned how the proposal would drive the increased
2 amount of users. Mr. Kutulas responded they previously provided data submitted by Kimley Horn and
3 described how people would walk, bike, etc. to the site. He stated it may only be a big draw initially and
4 they would monitor it moving forward with the imposition of a condition if the Board felt it necessary. Mr.
5 Francke and Mr. Kutulas stated the implication of conditions could be imposed after the use has been
6 operational. Chairman Bradley questioned the timeline for the dog beach operation. Mr. Kutulas
7 responded enforcement would be discussed with the Park Board with the intent to allow it to operate as
8 it currently did.
9
10 Mr. Haller asked the applicant if they considered challenges in reopening other locations for a possible
11 dog park and beach. Mr. Kutulas responded they were given direction by their Park Board in 2022 to
12 proceed with the plan with no instruction to consider other beach or park locations. He also referred to
13 existing beach impediments which function similarly to fences. Mr. Francke identified neighboring
14 communities with dog beaches with fences and noted the original plan was not withdrawn and addressed
15 the prior concerns relating to intermingling between beach goers and dogs.
16
17 Chairman Bradley then asked for public comment and swore in those speaking to this matter.
18
19 Kimberly Marsh, Forest Street, stated she is a daily dog beach user and referred to the fob in compliance
20 with regulations. She then raised concerns with having her dog on a leash going down the stairs with
21 others and also that she is against a fence on the beach. Ms. Marsh then stated the claim that Cook County
22 Animal Control required a fence on the beach is not a truthful statement.
23
24 John Root, a Winnetka resident, stated for the stairs going down to the beach, you cannot step off of them
25 since they would have railings on both sides. He stated with regard to the trespass issue; he questioned
26 how the plan can be approved which required trespass. Mr. Root also stated the easement was previously
27 addressed with no action taken to obtain an easement at that time.
28
29 Angie Dahl, a 40 year Winnetka resident, identified her previous roles in Village government and
30 summarized the application the Board is being asked to consider which is a revised application to allow
31 fencing at Centennial Beach. She stated the reason behind the continued application for the special use
32 permit is because of a proposed donation agreement and restrictive covenant between a private property
33 owner and the Park District. Ms. Dahl identified the issues created by the fence installation and read the
34 remainder of her statement into the record. She concluded by asking for the application to be denied.
35
36 Mary Garrison, a 40 year Winnetka resident, identified her previous roles in Village government and asked
37 for her letter in opposition to the proposal be included in the record. She stated her three main points
38 include: (i) no fence should be installed on the beach, (ii) fence installation in the water created safety
39 risks and (iii) and that precedent mattered. Ms. Garrison asked for the application to be denied.
40
41 Linda Welch, a 40 year Winnetka resident, stated she is a year round user of all of the beaches and
42 commented the fence is unwanted by the Winnetka community which she described as unsightly. She
43 also stated it would be extremely unsafe for the reasons stated and they are unsure as to whether it would
44 be permanent.
45
46 Allen Welch, Willow Road, stated he is an avid beach user and previous member of the Dog Park Selection
47 Committee. He clarified the position that they chose Tower Beach over the proposed location which
48 would not be good for people or dogs.
March 9, 2026 Page 6
1 Susie Schreiber, a 40 plus year Village resident, identified her previous positions in Village government
2 and her concerns with regard to water levels and sand accumulation. She stated there would be safety
3 issues with regard to the fence and water conditions. Ms. Schreiber referred to the underwater fence piles
4 which should have been removed and suggested there be an alternative solution to share with a
5 neighboring community. She also referred to the signage wording limitations.
6
7 Susan Curry, 375 Hawthorn, stated she is an active dog beach user, which she described as a happy place
8 with not a lot of accidents. She referred to documentation which showed that parks, water and sand are
9 the best places for dogs and humans. Ms. Curry also referred to the number of people who have used the
10 amenity over the past 30 years effectively, which has not been a concern other than the issue in
11 connection with one property line. She stated if suggestions can be made to make it better, those options
12 should be explored to allow people to continue to enjoy the beach.
13
14 Dave Robertson stated he grew up in the area and having seen the proposal, he asked the Board to deny
15 the application to create the dog park which would only benefit the adjacent neighbor.
16
17 Peggy Martay, a 50 year Winnetka resident, stated her concerns related to safety and water levels. She
18 also referred to the amount of time and money spent on unacceptable plans and asked for the request to
19 be denied.
20
21 Steve Juliesson, a 20 year Hubbard Woods resident, referred to the five years the Park District has worked
22 with one neighbor on a plan to keep people away from his beach and the numerous people, agencies and
23 amount of money spent on the project. He offered t-shirts to the Board which depict the Park District’s
24 efforts.
25
26 David Stevens, a 37 year resident, stated he appreciated the Park District’s attempts to address the
27 concerns raised. He referred to the reduction in the dog beach area and little gain to the use of the other
28 beach. Mr. Stevens then stated a comprehensive plan needed to be done which is all inclusive and which
29 did not only relate to one portion with a full plan needed in order to move forward with the project.
30
31 Ted Wynnychenko commented the Park District presentation included lies and half-truths and is the same
32 presentation which was denied last year which he summarized for the Board. He stated the property
33 owner’s allowance of an easement to allow access to the beach is unlikely. Mr. Wynnychenko also referred
34 to the dog beach’s prior removal and plans to move it to Tower Beach, which he described as a better
35 location. He concluded by questioning the Park District’s true agenda.
36
37 Katie Stevens stated that she lives on the lake and this plan is worse than the previous plan. She said the
38 cage would be underwater and dangerous. Ms. Stevens stated no fence should be in the lake and that
39 this would be a private fence.
40
41 Melissa Meizel stated the proposed plan did not achieve the goal of making dogs and their owners happy
42 and the fundamental design principles for such a facility have been embraced which she outlined for the
43 Board. She also referred to the riparian rights language on signage. Ms. Meizel urged the Board to
44 discourage this manner of proceeding and to deny the request. No additional public comment was made
45 at this time.
46
47 Chairman Bradley offered the applicant the opportunity to respond. Mr. Francke stated he understood
48 the number of concerns raised and the process they are undertaking worked which he described to the
March 9, 2026 Page 7
1 Board. He then referred to the concern related to the dog leash law change. Mr. Francke also responded
2 to the comment relating to the dog beach needing to be totally enclosed and referred to the regulation
3 which required a dog beach to be completely enclosed. He stated they are attempting to accommodate
4 everyone’s concerns and asked the Board to find their response reasonable.
5
6 Chairman Bradley closed public comment, called the matter in for discussion and referred to the standards
7 on page 22. Mr. Ritter stated with regard to all of the concerns raised by various people regarding public
8 safety and health, that standard has not been met. He also stated he is concerned with regard to potential
9 danger in connection with the fencing particularly when the water rose. Mr. Ritter also described the
10 fence as unsightly and would get worse as the fence deteriorated. He added he is in favor of having a dog
11 beach and referred to the inordinate amount of time and money spent in an attempt to get the fence built
12 when there would only be a limited amount of users. Mr. Ritter concluded for those reasons, he would
13 recommend denial.
14
15 Mr. Vender stated he would be curious to hear the reactions in that the alternative plans addressed the
16 concerns previously discussed before and how the concerns were addressed with regard to the
17 neighboring owner. He stated there would be a logical delineation in terms of the path and although the
18 plan design is not within the Board’s purview, the proposed plan appeared incomplete in that some of the
19 proposed structures described as temporary plans appeared disjointed. Mr. Vender stated he would first
20 like to hear the remaining Board Members’ comments.
21
22 Ms. Leister stated she appreciated the comments made and the presentation which she described as very
23 helpful. She stated she would lean against recommending special use permit approval and agreed with
24 the comments in connection with standard (a) which included concerns with dogs and people using the
25 same set of stairs, fencing in the water during high water levels, and the tight area between the rock wall
26 and the fence during high water periods. Ms. Leister stated with regard to standard (b), the fence would
27 have a negative visual impact for beach users although the revised plan attempted to address that
28 concern. She stated with regard to standard (f), the trespassing issue caused by not having an easement
29 in place should have been addressed since the issue was raised at previous meetings. Ms. Leister stated
30 she is also concerned relative to the number of dog park users compared to the number of Village
31 residents.
32
33 Ms. Hanley agreed with the comments made with regard to safety issues and described the request as
34 the tail wagging the dog with an attempt to get the dog park done on a temporary basis. She questioned
35 the priority of the dog beach and the attempt to shoehorn it on the beach which would create safety
36 issues. Ms. Hanley described the plan as not well thought out as part of a larger effort to increase beach
37 access as a community. She also stated it would not benefit the general welfare of the entire community
38 in this location and the plan as presented did not meet the first standard.
39
40 Mr. Nielsen stated the initial plan presented by the Park District contained great items and the revised
41 plan removed everything except for the dog beach. He stated the request felt short of all of the standards
42 except for standard (d). Mr. Nielsen stated he would not recommend approval.
43
44 Mr. Haller agreed with the comments made and stated the request failed many of the standards the Board
45 is tasked to evaluate and questioned by the continued efforts to make modifications necessary to stick
46 with this exact plan as opposed to rethinking all of the other options to satisfy dog owners in a safe manner
47 with no obstructions on the beach or in the water. He questioned the thought process between balancing
48 the needs of rights and enjoyment of dog owners versus the remaining 98% of Village residents. He stated
March 9, 2026 Page 8
1 the request failed straightforwardly against the standards and he would not recommend approval of the
2 request. Mr. Haller also added he did not like the precedent the request would set.
3
4 Chairman Bradley stated he agreed with the comments made and referred to the first standard and stated
5 while the fence would create safety in terms of the lack of safety without it, the regression to a mixed use
6 of Centennial Beach having a north and south beach with testimony made in that the stairway would
7 cause additional concern which would cause issues for those using the stairs. He commented he was
8 disappointed at the revised plan since it incorporated many of the concerns previously raised by the initial
9 plan. Chairman Bradley also stated there would be parking issues although he appreciated the Park District
10 testimony with regard to adjustments made to the fence siting. He also stated it is currently difficult to
11 walk the shoreline with the fence installation serving to increase safety with regard to the cliff area which
12 he described as a thoughtful adjustment.
13
14 Chairman Bradley stated the Board is only to review plan merits and although other locations were
15 considered, that would not be the basis that the standards are not met and specifically referred to
16 standard nos. 1, 2 and 5. He referred to the parking issues in connection with beach users and dog park
17 users. Chairman Bradley stated his biggest concern related to safety and the applicant would continue to
18 operate an off leash dog beach together with opening Elder Beach. He commented he hoped the applicant
19 would be able to come up with a compromise by the time the request is presented to the Village Council.
20 Chairman Bradley also referred to the previous alternative discussed to provide access at differentiated
21 times to the beach for dog owners.
22
23 Chairman Bradley stated it appeared there were enough votes to vote against an approval
24 recommendation and asked the applicant if they would like to continue the matter to a future meeting to
25 make alterations or proceed to a final vote which would include the Village Attorney preparing Findings
26 of Fact for vote at the next Board meeting or at a special meeting. Mr. Francke responded they would
27 prefer the Board proceed to vote.
28
29 Chairman Bradley first asked for a quorum check for the March 16, 2026, special meeting. The Board
30 Members discussed their availability and it was confirmed there would be a quorum. Chairman Bradley
31 then asked for a motion to direct the Village Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and a recommendation
32 against approval for consideration at the March 16, 2026, special meeting. A motion as stated by Chairman
33 Bradley was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Haller. A vote was taken and the motion
34 unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
35 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender
36 NAYS: None
37
38 New Cases:
39 a. Case No. 25-29-SD: 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue: An application seeking
40 approval of a Final Plat of Consolidation to consolidate the two existing lots into a single lot of record,
41 which requires variations to allow the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to: (a) observe less than
42 the minimum required side yard setback from the northerly property line, which is due to an increase
43 in the minimum required side yard setback as a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and
44 increase in average lot width; and (b) not provide the required building line articulation along the north
45 side building walls. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. Due to the Zoning Board of
46 Appeals' scheduled consideration of Case No. 25-28-SU, 225 Sheridan Road, Centennial Beach, this item
47 will be continued to a special Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on March 16, 2026.
48 The agenda item was continued to the March 16, 2026, special meeting.
March 9, 2026 Page 9
1 b. Case No. 25-24-SU: Winnetka Congregational Church - 725 Pine Street: An application seeking
2 approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a childcare center to operate in the existing church. The Village
3 Council has final jurisdiction on this request. Due to the Zoning Board of Appeals' scheduled
4 consideration of Case No. 25-28-SU, 225 Sheridan Road, Centennial Beach, this item will be continued
5 to a special Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on March 16, 2026.
6 The agenda item was continued to the March 16, 2026, special meeting.
7
8 New Business:
9 a. March 16, 2026, Special Meeting and April 13, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check.
10 The Board Members previously discussed their availability for the March 16, special meeting, so they
11 discussed their availability for the April 13, 2026, regular meeting.
12
13 Public Comments:
14 No comments were made at this time.
15
16 Adjournment:
17 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Hanley and
18 seconded by Mr. Nielsen. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
19 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender
20 NAYS: None
21 The meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m.
22
23 Respectfully submitted,
24
25 Antionette Johnson
26 Recording Secretary
27
Agenda
Village of Winnetka
Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting
March 9, 2026 at 7:00 PM
Village Hall Council Chambers
510 Green Bay Road
AGENDA
1. Call to Order & Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
a. February 9, 2026, Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Community Development Report
4. Continued Cases
a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: An application
seeking approval of a Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the
existing beach. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. This
item was continued from the February 9, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals
meeting.
5. New Cases
a. Case No. 25-29-SD: 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue: An
application seeking approval of a Final Plat of Consolidation to consolidate the
two existing lots into a single lot of record, which requires variations to allow the
existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to: (a) observe less than the minimum
required side yard setback from the northerly property line, which is due to an
increase in the minimum required side yard setback as a result of the proposed
increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width; and (b) not provide
the required building line articulation along the north side building walls. The
Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. Due to the Zoning Board of
Appeals' scheduled consideration of Case No. 25-28-SU, 225 Sheridan Road,
Centennial Beach, this item will be continued to a special Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting on March 16, 2026.
b. Case No. 25-24-SU: Winnetka Congregational Church - 725 Pine Street: An
application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a childcare center
to operate in the existing church. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on
this request. Due to the Zoning Board of Appeals' scheduled consideration of
Case No. 25-28-SU, 225 Sheridan Road, Centennial Beach, this item will be
continued to a special Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on March 16, 2026.
6. New Business
a. March 16, 2026, Special Meeting - Quorum Check
b. April 13, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
7. Public Comments
8. Adjournment
NOTICE
Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments
prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or
by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All
agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter.
The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with
disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have
questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay
Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041).
Packet
Village of Winnetka
Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting
March 9, 2026 at 7:00 PM
Village Hall Council Chambers
510 Green Bay Road
AGENDA
1. Call to Order & Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
a. February 9, 2026, Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Community Development Report
4. Continued Cases
a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: An application
seeking approval of a Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the
existing beach. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. This
item was continued from the February 9, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals
meeting.
5. New Cases
a. Case No. 25-29-SD: 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue: An
application seeking approval of a Final Plat of Consolidation to consolidate the
two existing lots into a single lot of record, which requires variations to allow the
existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to: (a) observe less than the minimum
required side yard setback from the northerly property line, which is due to an
increase in the minimum required side yard setback as a result of the proposed
increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width; and (b) not provide
the required building line articulation along the north side building walls. The
Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. Due to the Zoning Board of
Appeals' scheduled consideration of Case No. 25-28-SU, 225 Sheridan Road,
Centennial Beach, this item will be continued to a special Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting on March 16, 2026.
b. Case No. 25-24-SU: Winnetka Congregational Church - 725 Pine Street: An
application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a childcare center
to operate in the existing church. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on
this request. Due to the Zoning Board of Appeals' scheduled consideration of
Case No. 25-28-SU, 225 Sheridan Road, Centennial Beach, this item will be
continued to a special Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on March 16, 2026.
6. New Business
a. March 16, 2026, Special Meeting - Quorum Check
b. April 13, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
7. Public Comments
Page 1 of 157
8. Adjournment
NOTICE
Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments
prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or
by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All
agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter.
The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with
disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have
questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay
Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041).
Page 2 of 157
1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
2 FEBRUARY 9, 2026
3
4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman
5 Mark Haller
6 Lynn Hanley
7 Kathryn Leister
8 Mike Nielsen
9 Michael Ritter
10 Todd Vender
11
12 Zoning Board Members Absent: None
13
14 Village Staff: Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community
15 Development
16 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner
17
18 Village Attorney: Peter Friedman
19
20 Call to Order & Roll Call:
21 Chairman Bradley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Board Members
22 present.
23
24 Public Comment:
25 No comments were made at this time.
26
27 Approval of Meeting Minutes.
28 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to approve the January 12, 2026, meeting minutes. A motion to
29 approve the January 12, 2026, meeting minutes was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Nielsen. A
30 vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
31 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender
32 NAYS: None
33
34 Community Development Report.
35 Ms. Klaassen stated there is no Community Development Report.
36
37 Continued Cases:
38 a. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: An amended application seeking approval of a Final Plat
39 of Subdivision to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires a zoning variation to
40 allow Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) to provide less than the minimum required lot depth. The
41 Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. This item was continued from the October 13, 2025,
42 and December 8, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meetings.
43 Ms. Klaassen provided a detailed summary of the ZBA’s previous consideration of the request. She stated
44 in addition to the zoning variation for lot depth the amended subdivision request also requires two
45 subdivision code variations to allow the side lot line of proposed lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of proposed
46 lot 1 and the creation of a lot with a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line for the proposed
47 lot 2. Ms. Klaassen stated the Plan Commission would consider the request at its February 25, 2026,
48 meeting. She noted while the subdivision code variations are not within the Board’s purview, they are
Page 3 of 157
February 9, 2026 Page 2
1 being provided to the ZBA to ensure they have information with regard to all of the relief being requested.
2 Ms. Klaassen stated following the applicant's presentation, public comment and ZBA discussion, a ZBA
3 Member may make a motion to continue the request to a date certain or consider a motion
4 recommending approval or denial of the request. She noted no additional public correspondence was
5 received and asked if there were any questions.
6
7 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. He then
8 asked for the applicant’s presentation and swore in those speaking to this matter.
9
10 Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd., Wilmette, introduced himself along with the property owners,
11 Bob and Susan Marren, and Dan Creaney, the project engineer. He summarized the consideration of their
12 previous proposal and stated they have amended the application to include option 1 for the two lot
13 subdivision where the proposed lot 2 met the minimum lot area and rectangular area requirements with
14 no variation necessary and with a lot depth variation for lot 1. Mr. Canning stated the amended plan will
15 be presented to the Plan Commission and referred to the updated standards included in the packet. He
16 then asked if there were any questions.
17
18 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. He then
19 asked for public comment. No comments were made at this time. Chairman Bradley called the matter in
20 for discussion.
21
22 Chairman Bradley described the request as straightforward and asked for the Board’s comments. Mr.
23 Haller stated the applicant took the Board’s comments into consideration and described the request as a
24 reasonable compromise which reduced the number of required variations. He stated he would vote in
25 favor. Mr. Nielsen agreed the applicant came back with what the Board considered was the best idea and
26 stated he would vote in favor. Ms. Hanley agreed with the comments made and stated the variation
27 necessary to make the subdivision work is more in line with the standards and would be less likely to alter
28 surrounding properties.
29
30 Chairman Bradley referred to finding 2(a) for the proposed lot 1 relating to the playhouse. Ms. Leister and
31 Mr. Ritter both agreed with the comments made and stated they are in favor. Chairman Bradley stated
32 the Board appreciated the revised proposal and referred to the neighbors’ concerns and the fully
33 compliant lot 2 which would have allowed for a new home to be built. He stated the request met the
34 standards and the condition of the playhouse structure removal would resolve the minimum required
35 corner setback requirement.
36
37 Chairman Bradley then asked for a motion to recommend approval as included on page 17. A motion as
38 stated by Chairman Bradley was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Haller. A vote was taken and
39 the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
40 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender
41 NAYS: None
42
43 b. Case No. 26-01-V2: 671 Lincoln Avenue: An application seeking approval of a zoning variation
44 to allow construction of a circular driveway in the front yard of 671 Lincoln Avenue. The requested
45 variation would permit the proposed improvement to exceed the maximum permitted front yard lot
46 coverage. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. The Applicant has withdrawn this
47 application. The Zoning Board of Appeals will not be taking action on this application.
48 The application was withdrawn and no action was taken on this item.
Page 4 of 157
February 9, 2026 Page 3
1 New Cases:
2 a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: An application seeking approval of a
3 Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach. The Village Council has final
4 jurisdiction on this request.
5 Chairman Bradley opened the public hearing for this matter and noted the Park Board held a special
6 meeting on February 5, 2026, and the Park District authorized a revised proposed plan which has not yet
7 been submitted to the Village or the Village staff. He suggested continuing the matter to the March 9,
8 2026, meeting to allow the applicant to make a substantive presentation on the revised plan and provide
9 the Board and Village staff time to review those materials.
10
11 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to continue the matter to the March 9, 2026, meeting. A motion as
12 stated by Chairman Bradley was made by Ms. Hanley.
13
14 Hal Francke of Meltzer, Purtill & Stelle stated the Park District supported continuing the matter to March
15 9, 2026. He described the matter as unusual and stated the request is being presented due to the opening
16 of Elder Beach and to secure the dog beach and for it to be in compliance with various ordinances and
17 Cook County regulations. Mr. Francke stated the matter has to be presented to all three bodies and has
18 to be approved by various municipalities and government organizations. He referred to the number of
19 concerns the Plan Commission raised and the suggestion for the applicant to come back with a revised
20 plan with a special meeting held by the Park District Board and alternative plans devised. Mr. Francke
21 stated they would still like to proceed before the Board this evening on the plan, which was considered
22 by the Plan Commission, to go over the fundamental issues related to the fencing and introduce them to
23 the alternate plan to obtain the Board’s input to take back to the next Park Board meeting on February
24 26, 2026.
25
26 Chairman Bradley stated while he appreciated the expediency, he referred the amount of material to be
27 reviewed and the applicant would have the opportunity at the March meeting to present the alternative
28 plan. He stated the Board has never reviewed materials that had not yet been presented to or viewed by
29 the Village staff or the public. Chairman Bradley then stated special meetings can be held to move the
30 matter forward if necessary.
31
32 Chairman Bradley asked the Board Members if they would like to continue the matter or allow the
33 applicant to present the revised plan. All of the ZBA Members agreed with the suggestion to continue the
34 matter to allow more time to review the actual plan to the March 9, 2026, meeting. Mr. Haller then
35 seconded the motion. The Board Members then discussed their availability for the March 9, 2026,
36 meeting. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
37 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender
38 NAYS: None
39
40 Peter Friedman informed the public that since the matter was continued, they are not allowed to take
41 testimony or public comment since it would not be part of the public hearing record.
42
43 b. Case No. 26-04-V2: 1086 Fisher Crescent Lane: An application seeking approval of a zoning
44 variation to allow construction of a new single-family residence at 1086 Fisher Crescent Lane. The
45 requested variation would permit the proposed residence to provide less than the minimum required
46 corner yard setback from Fisher Crescent Lane. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
47 Mr. Marx summarized the requested variation and identified the property’s location, size and zoning
48 classification as well as the zoning lot’s conditions and easements in detail. He stated the demolition
Page 5 of 157
February 9, 2026 Page 4
1 application was approved by the Historic Preservation Commission without delay and referred to site
2 photos, the plat of survey excerpt with the approximate buildable area and proposed site plan for the
3 home. Mr. Marx also referred to proposed building elevations as well as the zoning standards the Board
4 is to consider. He stated two written comments were received from neighbors. Mr. Marx then stated
5 following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Board discussion, the Board may decide to
6 either continue the matter to a date certain to allow time to address questions or comments or make a
7 motion to recommend approval or denial of the requested variation with draft language included on page
8 no. 375. He asked if there were any questions.
9
10 Chairman Bradley referred to an illustration and questioned the minimum front yard, minimum side yard
11 and minimum corner yard setbacks. Mr. Marx responded the setbacks would be the same for the existing
12 and proposed home with the exception being for front yard setback when the block average setback is
13 taken into account. Mr. Marx and Ms. Klaassen provided additional detailed information with regard to
14 the setbacks of the existing residence. Mr. Haller referred to the Crescent easement. Mr. Marx clarified
15 the easement areas for the Board. No additional questions were raised at this time.
16
17 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Eamon Murphy, the architect for the project,
18 described the challenges with the property and the applicant’s ownership and history of the building and
19 site. He stated besides the property being 70% legally nonconforming, it was built in numerous stages and
20 the home is noncompliant in several areas. Mr. Murphy stated they would like to create a home which
21 would fit their family. He noted the buildable lot area is 25% and referred to the buildable square footage
22 area. Mr. Murphy described how the new home’s design would require the minimum number of
23 variations. He then referred to two large trees in the southwest corner of the site which limited the
24 buildable area which he described in detail.
25
26 Mr. Murphy stated they understand the difficulties in requesting variations for new construction and
27 described the 25% buildable area limitation as a hardship and they would try to appropriately scale a new
28 home to be appropriate for the neighborhood. He noted they are not requesting relief for RLC, FAR or
29 impermeable lot coverage and they are dealing with extremely restrictive setbacks. Mr. Murphy identified
30 the proposed setback for the new L-shaped home which would create a courtyard and provide visual
31 interest opportunities along the road.
32
33 Chairman Bradley asked what alternatives were explored with regard to the trees and how close the trees
34 are to the house. Mr. Murphy responded it is 17 feet clear to the tightest portion of the home. He stated
35 they never tried to re-site the home in its current position and referred to development on the easement
36 which never took place. Mr. Murphy also described difficulties with regard to the existing home’s
37 condition which limited options for the new home’s siting. He stated they never planned to fit as much
38 possible square footage into the buildable area as they can. No additional questions were raised at this
39 time.
40
41 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment. No comments were made at this time. He then called the
42 matter in for discussion.
43
44 Ms. Hanley stated she would recommend approval and described the request as small in terms of the
45 encroachment. She stated the aesthetic would not alter the character of the street and the hardship
46 related to the lot’s shape due to the private easements which resulted in a small buildable area. Mr. Leister
47 agreed the lot is difficult and commented the variation requested is reasonable. She stated she would also
48 recommend approval. Mr. Ritter agreed with the comments made and referred to the amount of time the
Page 6 of 157
February 9, 2026 Page 5
1 applicant spent to minimize the encroachment. Mr. Vender stated he was initially concerned with regard
2 to precedent and referred to the context of the lot’s limitations and the applicant deciding not to maximize
3 the buildable lot area. Mr. Nielsen stated a smaller home would still result in reasonable return and
4 referred to the unique lot and geometry. He stated with all things considered; the applicant is not trying
5 to maximize every inch. He stated reducing the screen porch size would make it more conforming and he
6 is undecided at this time. Mr. Haller stated he would lean toward recommending approval and agreed
7 with the comments made. He stated he respected the attempt to keep the large trees which would result
8 in retaining some elements which are part of the neighborhood character. Mr. Haller also stated there is
9 an easement for an established roadway and the observed setback from the road is greater. He concluded
10 he would be in favor of the request. Chairman Bradley commented he did not feel good asking for
11 variations for new construction. He referred to the reasonable return standard and agreed while the
12 property is unusual, easements or irregular or existing nonconforming lots are not uncommon. Chairman
13 Bradley stated while the amount is de minimus, he questioned whether any amount is justified in
14 connection with the first standard and the applicant knew of the lot’s limitations at the time the property
15 was acquired. He then stated the new home can be modified and that the first standard has not been
16 met.
17
18 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to recommend approval as indicated on page 9. A motion as stated
19 by Chairman Bradley was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Ritter. A vote was taken and the
20 motion passed, 5 to 2:
21 AYES: Haller, Hanley, Leister, Ritter, Vender
22 NAYS: Bradley, Nielsen
23
24 New Business:
25 a. March 9, 2026, Meeting - Quorum Check
26 The Board Members previously discussed their availability.
27
28 Public Comment:
29 No comments were made at this time.
30
31 Adjournment:
32 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Hanley and
33 seconded by Mr. Nielsen. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
34 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender
35 NAYS: None
36 The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
37
38 Respectfully submitted,
39
40 Antionette Johnson
41 Recording Secretary
Page 7 of 157
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGEOF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: SCOTT MANGUM, DIRECTOR
ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: MARCH 4, 2026
SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL BEACH FENCE – 225 SHERIDAN ROAD
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (AMENDED CASE NO. 25-28-SU)
INTRODUCTION
On March 9, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) is scheduled to hold a continued public hearing
on an amended application submitted by the Winnetka Park District (the “Applicant”), as the owner of
the property located at 225 Sheridan Road (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant is proposing
installation of fencing on the existing beach located on the Subject Property and requests approval of the
following relief:
1. Approval of a Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach on the
Subject Property, which is located in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District and the
Lakefront Preservation Overlay District.
A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property for the commencement
of the public hearing on February 9, 2026, in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The hearing was also
properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on January 22, 2026, and a public notice sign was posted on the
Subject Property indicating the time and date of the February 9 ZBA public hearing. As of the date of this
memo, staff has received several written comments from the public regarding this application. Written
comments that were not included in the February 9 ZBA agenda packet but distributed to the ZBA in time
for that meeting, as well as written comments that have been received since the February 9 meeting are
included in Attachment C1. The public correspondence included in the February 9 agenda packet was
divided into two attachments and are available on the Village website:
1. Public Correspondence Previously Included in PC Agenda Packet:
https://winnetkail.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1199/files/attachment/4624
2. Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of January 28, 2026, PC Agenda Packet:
https://winnetkail.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1199/files/attachment/4625
PLAN COMMISSION REVIEW
On January 28, 2026, the Plan Commission (“PC”) considered the Applicant’s initial request for approval
of a special use permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach. After a presentation by staff
and a presentation by the Applicant, the PC heard from 16 members of the public. 15 of the speakers
spoke in opposition to the proposed plan. The PC then discussed the request. Members expressed
concerns regarding, among other things, safety of the fencing in the water and people having to walk
Page 1
Page 8 of 157
through an area designated for dogs to be off-leash in order to traverse the beach. Hence, the
Commission found that the proposed use does not meet the standards for granting a special use permit.
After all public comment and after hearing the comments of the PC, the Applicant immediately prior to
the vote asked if it could present a plan that eliminated the fencing in the water and provided for a by-
pass for public access around the dog beach at a future PC meeting. The PC was not receptive to an
amended plan being presented to them after all of the public comments related to the submitted plan.
Therefore, by a vote of 7-0, the PC directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of
denial with written findings and determinations based on the PC’s discussion for consideration at the
next Plan Commission meeting on February 25, 2026.
On, February 25, 2026, by a vote of 6-0, the PC approved the written findings and recommendation to
deny the Special Use Permit.
FEBRUARY 9, 2026, ZBA MEETING
On February 9, 2026, the ZBA commenced a public hearing on the Applicant’s special use permit for
proposed fencing on the beach located on the Subject Property. However, since the Winnetka Park
District Board authorized an amended plan at its February 5 meeting and the amended plan had not been
submitted to the Village for review in advance of the February 9 ZBA meeting, by a vote of 7-0, the ZBA
voted to continue the item to the March 9 ZBA meeting. Although the Applicant has amended its plan
since the staff report for the February 9 meeting was prepared, it can be found in Attachment B1 for the
ZBA’s reference and for details on the original plan that received a negative recommendation from the
PC. A copy of the draft February 9 ZBA meeting minutes is included in the March 9 agenda packet for the
ZBA’s consideration.
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this application, as the Council has sole authority to grant a
Special Use Permit.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property, which is approximately 5.3 acres (230,911.56 square feet) in size, is located on the
east side of Sheridan Road generally between Fuller Lane and Elder Lane and contains Centennial Beach
and Park (see Figure 1). Under the Village Zoning Ordinance, the Subject Property has two front yards: (i)
the street frontage along Sheridan Road to the west; and (ii) lake frontage along Lake Michigan to the
east.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Open Space” land uses,
which includes public parks & recreation facilities, pocket parks/plazas, and Cook County Forest Preserve
Land. The Comprehensive Plan also includes the following related goals:
Goal 1.7: The Village will continue to ensure that open space uses, such as Park District parks,
beaches, and facilities, are compatible with the residential neighborhoods in which they are
located.
Initiative 1.7.1: Study and consider establishing a specific zoning district for open space
uses, or specific zoning standards for such uses within existing residential districts. This
would allow more appropriate zoning standards for these uses.
Goal 6.1: The Village will continue to promote and encourage partnerships with other units of
government and agencies to conserve, restore, and enhance natural features and ecosystems, to
Page 9 of 157
ensure accessibility to natural areas, parks, and other open or public spaces, and to support
recreational facilities and programs that support the health of residents of all ages and abilities.
Initiative 6.1.1. Continue to collaborate with the Park District, local school districts, Forest
Preserves of Cook County, and others to create opportunities that enhance accessibility
to the open spaces of Winnetka. (refer to initiative 8.3.5)
Initiative 6.1.2. Continue to collaborate with the Park District, School District, Library
District, Community House of Winnetka, and other community institutions to offer
programs that maintain active and thriving Village recreation programs, offering a
variety of sports, exercise, arts and crafts, cultural, life skills, educational, social, and
leisure programs for residents of all ages and abilities.
Goal 6.4: The Village will support health and wellness through innovative and diversified
recreational, learning, and cultural opportunities in its public parks, plazas, trails, and open
spaces.
Initiative 6.4.4. Support the efforts of the Park District and other community
organizations to expand and/or modify Winnetka’s recreational programming to fill gaps
in services.
Goal 6.5: The Village will support policies that preserve and protect the unique natural resources
of and the recreational opportunities provided by the Lake Michigan shoreline and bluffs.
Initiative 6.5.1. Continue to study and consider establishing development regulations
addressing construction of shoreline stabilization projects and specific recreational
projects in and adjacent to Lake Michigan and its shoreline that will not cause
environmental damage to or interfere with the greater recreational opportunities
provided by the Lake and adjacent areas. [Ordinance MC-05-2023 was adopted by the
Village Council on March 21, 2023, which created a new chapter of Village Code –
Chapter 15.78 Lakefront Construction.]
Initiative 6.5.2. Study and consider establishing development regulations that requires
construction on and adjacent to the bluffs along the Lake Michigan shoreline that
protects, restores, and manages the stability of the bluffs and natural shoreline and that
are contextually sensitive to the natural features of the bluffs. [Ordinance MC-01-2024
was adopted by the Village Council on February 6, 2024, amending the Zoning Ordinance
concerning establishing bluff regulations for development in the steep slope area along
Lake Michigan.]
The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and is in the Lakefront Preservation Overlay
District, and it is bordered by R-2 Single Family Residential to the north and south, and R-4 Single Family
Residential to the west (see Figure 2).
In addition to single-family residential uses, the R-2 District allows a limited range of additional uses by
Special Use Permit. Allowed Special Uses in the R-2 District include (a) church or temple; (b) public
school, elementary and high, or private school having a curriculum equivalent to a public elementary
school, public high school or public institution of higher learning; and (c) library. In addition, the Zoning
Ordinance allows park and recreational uses in any zoning district within the Village by special use permit
approval.
Page 10 of 157
The Applicant’s current use of the Subject Property as a park and recreational facility is generally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-2 zoning district. The Applicant
recently used the Subject Property as an off-leash dog area as well.
Subject
Property
Figure 1 – GIS Aerial Map
Subject
Property
Figure 2 – Zoning Map
Page 11 of 157
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
Based upon documents provided by the Applicant, it appears that the Applicant has owned the Subject
Property since 1969. There are six (6) previous zoning cases on file for the Subject Property, five of which
occurred prior to the Applicant acquiring the Subject Property:
1. In 1923, ZBA Case No. 43 was approved to allow an addition to a nonconforming use for the North
Shore Health Resort;
2. In 1945, ZBA Case No. 702 was approved to allow the alteration of a nonconforming use and
building for the North Shore Health Resort;
3. In 1949, ZBA Case No. 751 was not approved to allow a building addition to the North Shore
Health Resort;
4. In 1951, ZBA Case No. 776 was not approved to allow enclosure of the front entrance of the North
Shore Health Resort;
5. In 1964, ZBA Case No. 935 was approved to allow the extension of a nonconforming use (North
Shore Health Resort) with the construction of an accessory building; and
6. In December 2024, Case No. 24-08-SU received a recommendation of approval from the ZBA for
zoning variations and exceptions from the steep slope regulations, subject to approval by the
Village Council of a special use permit, for which the ZBA recommended denial of, to allow
improvements to the existing park and beach on the Subject Property. In May 2025, the Plan
Commission (PC) recommended denial of the special use permit and steep slope exceptions. The
application has been on hold at the Applicant’s request, since the PC made its recommendation.
The application still requires review by the Design Review Board before being considered by the
Village Council. It is the Village’s understanding that the Applicant is revising its previous plans
and upon a revised submittal it is anticipated that the application will be considered first by the
advisory bodies before it is considered by the Village Council.
Figures 3 and 4 on the following page are photos of the Subject Property taken in January. Figures 5
through 8 are photos taken in the summer of 2024.
Page 12 of 157
Figure 3 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (January 2026)
Figure 4 – Subject Property – Looking South at Existing Steel Groin on Centennial Beach & Stone Groin
at 205 Sheridan Road Property (January 2026)
Page 13 of 157
Figure 5 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
Figure 6 – Subject Property – Looking South at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
Page 14 of 157
Figure 7 – Subject Property – Looking North from Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
LAKEFRONT CONSTRUCTION AND STEEP SLOPE ORDINANCES
Given the Subject Property is located along Lake Michigan it is subject to the lakefront construction
ordinance, Chapter 15.78 of the Village Code, and the steep slope regulations, Chapter 17.82 of the Village
Code. However, it is important to note that the proposed fence is not located within the steep slope zone;
it is located lakeward of the toe of the bluff.
The requirements of both chapters are administratively reviewed and approved by staff (in this case after
zoning approval). However, an applicant may appeal the decision of staff regarding the application of the
lakefront construction ordinance to the Village Council or may request exceptions from the steep slope
requirements.
The lakefront construction regulations govern construction along, adjacent to, and within Lake Michigan.
A permit pursuant to the lakefront construction ordinance is required for any construction activity within
Lake Michigan regulated areas that requires a permit from any of the following governmental agencies
(“Permitting Agencies”): the United States Army Corp of Engineers, the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, or the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (collectively, "Covered Construction"). Typical construction activity relates to beach
preservation, which consists of steel or stone groins, revetments/bulkheads/seawalls, or other means of
lakefront stabilization and preservation. The Village’s formal review and approval of such a permit occurs
after the applicable zoning approvals and the regulatory agencies review and approve their respective
permits. The Village’s review and approval is conducted administratively by the Village Director of
Engineering in consultation with the applicant and the Village’s coastal engineering consultant. This
review is based upon a set of criteria identified in the regulations.
Page 15 of 157
Figure 8 - Existing Sea Wall on Subject Property (Summer 2024)
The technical review and approval of proposed plans set forth in the lakefront construction regulations
and the steep slope regulations occurs during the building permit process, which occurs after the zoning
entitlement process (e.g. special use, variations, etc.). That said, during Village staff’s review of a zoning
entitlement application, Village staff and consultants will conduct a preliminary review of the project for
code requirements to determine if the development should be able to, in general terms, comply with
administrative code requirements. Detailed construction plans are not required at this time, but the
applicant is required to provide sufficient information so staff can determine whether the proposed site
layout can be achieved and still comply with other Village regulations as noted above. If after the Village
Council approves a special use permit and during the building permit process an applicant changes the
design of the project to such an extent that it would be considered a major change, the applicant would
be required to go through the full special use permit process again before staff issues a building permit.
Regarding the Centennial Beach zoning relief application, the Applicant has submitted plans for the
proposed fence that have been reviewed by the Village Director of Engineering and Village’s coastal
engineer. The Engineering Department has provided comments to the Applicant. The Village Director of
Engineering has determined that the responses provided by the Applicant address the review comments.
The Applicant is aware that all of the approved permits from the Permitting Agencies will need to be
provided, and a special use permit granted before the Engineering Department can issue final approval.
Each advisory board and commission will review the application based upon the applicable standards for
that advisory body. Their review is based upon these broad standards and not based upon a review of
the technical code requirements for such items as the Village’s stormwater requirements, building code
requirements, lakefront construction approval criteria, or steep slope regulation development standards.
Those technical items are reviewed in detail administratively by qualified engineering staff during the
building permit process.
Page 16 of 157
PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE
Given the proposed improvements are located along the lakefront, it is important to review the nature
and extent of the “public trust doctrine”. Generally, the “public trust doctrine” is a concept based upon
an 1892 United States Supreme Court decision that held that lands under the navigable waters of Lake
Michigan are held by the state in trust for the people of the state. This doctrine has since been codified
by Illinois statue. Illinois courts have held that the boundary between private land and land owned by the
state in public trust is “the line where the water usually [stands] when unaffected by storms or other
disturbing causes.” This line is variously referred to as the “water’s edge,” “still water shoreline,” “calm
waterline,” “unaffected waterline,” or the “normal waterline.” Accordingly, in Illinois the boundary
between private land and public land is the point at which the water normally stands (the "Normal
Waterline").
A rule of thumb that generally applies in Illinois and other jurisdictions that rely on the Normal Waterline
for the public-private property demarcation is that if your feet are wet, you are on public property, and if
your feet are dry then you are on private property. Based on these principles, the demarcation line in
Illinois between public and private land is the same demarcation line that identifies where land held in
trust begins and ends – both lines are the Normal Waterline.
The Illinois Supreme Court has held that the public trust doctrine for Lake Michigan extends “to
recreational uses, including bathing, swimming and other shore activities.”
The Normal Waterline may change over time as a result of various processes, including accretion, reliction,
and erosion. Gradual changes to the Normal Waterline over time resulting in either increases or decreases
in the amount of dry land are an “inherent and essential attribute of the original property,” and the
property line changes with the Normal Waterline. However, if the addition or loss of property is sudden
(i.e., caused by a violent storm), then the property line does not change. The test of what change is
gradual, as opposed to sudden, is “that though the witnesses may see from time to time that progress has
been made, they could not perceive it while the process was going on”. Although a riparian owner may
protect his property from erosion, he has no right to affect an increase of his own land, the result of which
is a corresponding loss of land owned by the state in trust for the public.
Under these principles, the owner of real estate fronting on Lake Michigan generally owns the property
to the Normal Waterline, and the land east of the Normal Waterline is owned by the state in trust for the
public.
AMENDED PROPOSED PLAN
In response to the comments the Applicant heard at the January 28 PC meeting, it has submitted the
amended plan and narrative included in Attachment A1. The original plan consisted of two rows of 4-
foot high chain-link fencing extending perpendicular from the existing sea wall at the toe of the bluff into
the lake, set back 20 feet from both the north and south boundaries of Centennial Beach (Figure 9). This
plan required those walking along the beach from the north end to the south end of the Subject Property,
or vice versa, to walk through the dog beach. Details regarding the original plan can be found in
Attachment B1.
The purpose of the fencing is to provide an enclosure to allow dogs off-leash on the beach year-round.
The existing beach has been utilized as a dog beach since 1995, according to the Applicant. Currently,
patrons are required to have a key fob to access the existing beach from the top of the bluff above and
dogs are required to be leashed. In the proposed plan, the existing gate at the top of the bluff would
remain but access would be controlled with a programed timed locking system that would operate from
Page 17 of 157
6:00am to 10:00pm, this allows for public access to the beach. While entry into the fenced off-leash dog
beach area would be restricted with the key fob system currently in place at the top of the bluff. There
would be a double-entry gate system to allow for unleashing and leashing of dogs. There would also be a
10-foot wide maintenance access gate that would remain locked and used by Park District staff. The Fire
Department has requested access to the maintenance gate for emergency responses and the Applicant
has agreed to coordinate with the Fire Department to provide access.
The proposed fencing would be attached to the existing steel groins and enclose approximately 265 feet
of the beach frontage for dogs to be off-leash (Figure 10). This represents a reduction of approximately
50% from the original plan presented to the PC in terms of the linear frontage of the dog beach area.
Another major difference in the amended plan is the addition of a west fence that would be located 12
feet east (lakeward) of the existing sea wall to allow the public to traverse the beach without entering the
off-leash dog area. This fence would be 4 feet in height above grade (sand level).
Use of Remaining Beach Area. Included in Attachment A1, is a narrative provided by the Applicant
explaining the use of the remainder of Centennial Beach given the amended plan now limits the dog beach
area to roughly half of Centennial Beach. The remaining portion of the beach consists of approximately
260 feet of lake frontage and would be used as a passive beach without swimming. The Applicant
indicates in the attached narrative that staffing for the passive beach would generally be late May through
early September and that access to the beach would require a beach pass. The beach will remain
accessible from 6:00am until 10:00pm outside the typical beach season, but it will not be staffed.
Parking on site currently consists of 11 parking spaces, one of which is an accessible space. Use of the
parking is currently restricted to dog beach pass holders and Winnetka residents. The Applicant intends
for this parking policy to remain. However, in the attached narrative the Applicant outlines further
restrictions that could be put in place if necessary, which include but are not limited to, instituting a 2-
hour time limit and restricting access to dog pass holders only.
North Fence. The north portion of the fence would be 46’-6” feet in length with approximately 20 feet of
the fence extending from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (581.5) lakeward (Figure 11). The 4-wide
access gate would be located where the west and north fence meet. Patrons would enter through this
gate into an unleashing and leashing area measuring 10 feet by 10 feet. The extent to which the proposed
fence would extend beyond the OHWM is reduced by approximately 20 feet in the amended plan.
South Fence. The south fence would be 49’-3” in length, and also extend approximately 20 feet from the
OHWM towards the lake (Figure 12). There would not be an access gate in this portion of the fencing. At
the west end, the fence would be set back 5 feet from the south property line. Due to the angle of the
existing steel groin, upon which the proposed fencing would be installed, in relation to the south property
line, the distance between the proposed fence and the south property line would narrow from 5 feet at
the west end until it meets the south property line and ends. Given the proximity of the proposed fence
to the south property line, it is important to note the distance between the property line and the stairs
that go over the 205 Sheridan Road stone groin is approximately 10 feet and at this location the fence
would be north of the property line by at least 1’-11”.
In response to staff review comments, including the Village’s coastal engineering consultant, the two
lakeward sections of fencing (the east 20 feet) would be modular, so that these sections could be removed
during late fall and winter and reinstalled in the spring.
The proposed site plan and up-close excerpts of both the north and south fences, as well as elevations of
the proposed fencing are provided on the following pages. The complete set of amended plans are
Page 18 of 157
included in Attachment A1.
OHWM
(Front Lot Line)
Proposed
Existing Stairs to Beach South Fence
(key fob access) and Gate
Proposed Existing Sea Wall
North Fence
and Gate
Figure 9 –Original Site Fencing Plan (January Plan Commission Meeting)
Property Line Between
Centennial Park & Beach
and 261 Sheridan Road
OHWM
Proposed (Front Lot Line)
Fence
Existing Stairs to Beach
Proposed
(time restricted access)
Access Gate
Figure 10 – Amended Site Fencing Plan (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0)
Page 19 of 157
Proposed Proposed
Unleashing/Leashing Area Fence
(key fob access)
Proposed
Maintenance
Existing Sea Wall Access Gate
Figure 11 – North and West Portion of Proposed Fencing (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0)
Property Line Between
Centennial Park & Beach
and 205 Sheridan Road
Proposed
Fence
Figure 12 – South and West Portion of Proposed Fencing (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0)
Page 20 of 157
Figure 13 – Elevation of North Fence
Figure 14 – Elevation of South Fence
Fence and wall height within required setbacks. With the adoption of the steep slope regulations, the
Village also amended the Zoning Ordinance to redefine the front line along the lake as well as the front
yard setback along the lake. The front lot line is now the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and is defined
as the line on the shore of Lake Michigan consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ administrative
benchmark, which is currently set at 581.5’. The front yard setback along the lake is now defined as the
toe of the bluff or 50 feet from the OHWM, whichever results in the line farthest from the OHWM.
The Zoning Ordinance allows fences, walls, or a combination of a fence and wall within a required yard
that is no taller than 6.5 feet from natural grade. While the proposed fence would be located within the
required front yard and it would be installed on top of the existing steel groins, at a maximum aggregate
height of 5.92 feet at the east end of the proposed fence, it complies with the maximum permitted height.
Therefore, the proposed fence complies with the zoning regulations.
CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
As explained earlier in this report, the Plan Commission has completed its review of the Applicant’s
request for approval of a special use permit and made its recommendation to the Village Council.
The Design Review Board is scheduled to consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed
fencing on March 26, 2026.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
The ZBA is charged with evaluating Special Uses for consistency with the six standards for granting specials
use permits. In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant has provided
a statement of justification regarding how the requested Special Use Permit meets the standards for
granting the requested Special Use Permit.
After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the ZBA will have the following options:
1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with
additional time to address questions and comments from the ZBA.
Page 21 of 157
2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Special Use. If the ZBA is prepared
to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested relief, a ZBA member
should make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the
following standards and direct staff and the Village Attorney to prepare written findings and
determinations for the ZBA’s consideration and final vote at a subsequent meeting:
1. The proposed improvement is consistent [is not consistent] with the Standards for the
granting of Special Use Permits, as follows:
a. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the special use and
associated exceptions will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort, morals or general welfare;
b. That the special use and the associated exceptions will not be substantially
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
which are permitted by right in the district or districts of concern, nor substantially
diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity;
c. That the establishment of the special use and associated exceptions will not
impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of other property in
the immediate vicinity for uses permitted by right in the district or districts of
concern;
d. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress
in a manner which minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the
public ways;
e. That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities
necessary to the operation of the special use exist or are to be provided; and
f. That the special use and associated exceptions in all other respects conforms to
the applicable regulations of this and other Village ordinances and codes.
As noted above, any motion on a decision by the ZBA should direct the Village Attorney to prepare
written findings and determinations for the ZBA to consider and vote on at a subsequent meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A1: Applicant’s Amended Request and Plans
Attachment B1: February 9, 2026, ZBA Meeting Staff Report
Attachment C1: Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of February ZBA Agenda Packet
Page 22 of 157
ATTACHMENT A1
Costa Kutulas
Director of Parks and Maintenance
Winnetka Park District
1380 Willow Road
Winnetka Illinois 60093
March 4, 2026
Ann Klaassen
Assistant Director of Community Development
Village of Winnetka
Winnetka Illinois 60093
Re: Park Board Operational Direction – February 26, 2026
Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28-SU
Centennial Beach – Off-Leash Dog Beach (Alternate 1)
Dear Ann,
This letter is intended to formally document the operational direction provided by the Winnetka
Park Board at its February 26, 2026 meeting regarding Centennial Beach and the proposed
fenced off-leash dog beach (Alternate 1), in connection with Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28-
SU.
Following approval of Alternate 1 on February 5, 2026, the Park Board reviewed operational
components necessary to refine the Special Use Permit application and to ensure that the
proposed use satisfies applicable standards relating to public health, safety, welfare,
compatibility, and site management. The actions summarized herein were approved contingent
upon issuance of the necessary permits.
With respect to access control and site management, the Board directed staff to maintain the
existing access-controlled gate at the top of the bluff and to install a new access-controlled gate
at the beach level, as reflected in Alternate 1. This dual-gate configuration provides layered
access control and operational flexibility. The upper gate will operate pursuant to Park District
Ordinance #504 and standard park hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. through a programed
timed locking system. The lower beach-level gate will operate during the same hours but will
require a key fob for entry into the fenced off-leash dog beach area. The key-fob system allows
the Park District to regulate access, suspend operations during hazardous lake or weather
1
Page 23 of 157
conditions, and enforce compliance with dog beach eligibility requirements. We will also
maintain the existing exit button which allows beach walkers to leave the site if there is an
instance where someone might be exiting the beach outside of permitted hours or closures due to
storm events. Collectively, these measures enhance public safety, improve enforceability, and
ensure controlled access consistent with Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control
regulations and Village leash law requirements.
The Board further designated the approximately 260-foot section of Centennial Beach located
immediately north of the fenced off-leash dog beach as a staffed passive beach with no
swimming permitted. This designation was selected to maintain public shoreline access while
avoiding the establishment of an additional programmed swimming beach and limiting the
operational intensity of the site. Staffing for the passive beach will align with the typical
swimming beach season, generally late May through early September. During that period, staff
presence will provide oversight and management only, again no swimming will be permitted at
the northern beach area. During this time the northern passive beach area will require a beach
pass to utilize the beach area. This is the same review as practiced last Fall at Elder Lane Beach.
This will help limit the potential influx of beach users if it was a “free beach” which could cause
issues with parking on site and the adjacent streets. Outside of the traditional beach season, the
passive beach will remain accessible during standard park hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. but
will not be staffed. This measured approach maintains access to the shoreline, limits potential
conflicts between uses, and supports compatibility with adjacent properties and lakefront
activities.
The Board confirmed that the fenced off-leash dog beach will operate year-round, consistent
with its longstanding historical operation at Centennial Beach. Daily operating hours for both the
fenced off-leash dog beach and the northern passive beach were established at 6:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. These hours align with standard park hours, provide predictability for neighboring
properties, support enforceability through the timed gate system, and limit late-night activity that
could affect neighborhood compatibility. The continuation of year-round dog beach operations,
combined with defined daily hours and controlled access, reflects a continuation of an existing
community amenity under strengthened regulatory and operational controls.
Recognizing that parking and traffic considerations remain part of the Special Use Permit
review, the Board established a prioritized parking management framework to guide
implementation and allow flexibility for potential conditions of approval. The Board directed
that permit-required parking access for dog beach pass holders and Winnetka residents remain
2
Page 24 of 157
the primary strategy. If necessary, a two-hour parking restriction may be implemented to
promote turnover. As a further measure, parking access could be reduced to dog beach pass
holders only. The Board also authorized staff to evaluate the feasibility of a shuttle service and to
explore potential land-banking opportunities at Centennial Park. This structured hierarchy
provides the Village and reviewing bodies with clear operational parameters while preserving the
ability to implement additional mitigation measures should they be deemed necessary. Based on
prior parking analysis and the shared use of the Elder Lane Park parking lot, the Park District
believes that existing capacity is sufficient to accommodate projected demand; however, the
District remains willing to evaluate additional measures as part of the review process.
The project remains subject to review and approval by the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control, and the Village of Winnetka. Revised
plans reflecting the Board’s operational direction will be submitted to the appropriate agencies
for evaluation. The timing of those reviews will depend upon each agency’s independent review
process.
The Park Board’s February 26, 2026 actions were intended to strengthen access control, clarify
operational parameters, maintain shoreline access, limit intensity of use in the northern beach
area, provide enforceable daily hours, establish a structured parking management hierarchy, and
enhance overall site safety and compatibility. The Park District respectfully submits this
operational clarification for inclusion in the Special Use Permit record and consideration by the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Please advise if additional information would assist the Village in preparation for the March 9,
2026, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Sincerely,
Costa Kutulas
Director of Parks and Maintenance
Winnetka Park District
CC: Shannon Nazzal, Executive Director of the Winnetka Park District
Scott Mangum, Director of Community Development Village of Winnetka
3
Page 25 of 157
1 East Wacker Drive
TW 581.70 Suite 2700
Chicago, Illinois 60601
p 312.467.5445
f 312.467.5484
thelakotagroup.com
TW 582.40
TW 582.20
TW 582.80
PREPARED FOR
TW 583.00
PROJECT SITE LOCATION:
42.09821N, -87.71452W TW 583.20 Winnetka Park
District
TW 588.80 TW 591.60 540 Hibbard Rd
Winnetka, IL 60093
TW 584.00
CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH
TW 588.80
Dog Beach
Fencing
Alternate Plan 1
261 SHERIDAN RD 205 SHERIDAN RD
225 Sheridan Rd
Winnteka, IL 60093
H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2025\25030 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park Revised\07 Graphics\01 SD\02 CAD\20260303 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg
It's smart. It's free. It's the law.
Call
Before
You Dig
Call before
you dig.
ILLINOIS
ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811
ISSUED FOR PERMIT
March 3, 2026
REVISIONS
No Date Issue
VICINITY MAP
SCALE IN FEET
1" = 30'
0' 15' 30' 90'
NORTH SHEET NUMBER
C
L1.0
2026 The Lakota Group
Page 26 of 157
1 East Wacker Drive
Suite 2700
Chicago, Illinois 60601
p 312.467.5445
f 312.467.5484
thelakotagroup.com
TW 581.70
SOUTH FENCE
PREPARED FOR
SEE ELEVATION, DETAIL 2, SHEET L3.0
Winnetka Park
District
TW 582.40 540 Hibbard Rd
WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY Winnetka, IL 60093
ELEV. 581.5 (HIGH WATER LINE) ELEV. 578.6 (NORMAL WATER LINE)
TW 582.20
CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH
TW 582.80 1'-11"
NORTH FENCE
Dog Beach
49'-3"
SEE ELEVATION, DETAIL 1, SHEET L3.0
TW 582.50
10'-0" Fencing
265'-0" 33'-2"
WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY
ELEV. 578.6 (NORMAL WATER LINE)
Alternate Plan 1
TW 583.20
TW 583.00
5'-0"
PROJECT SITE LOCATION:
225 Sheridan Rd
46'-6"
42.09821N, -87.71452W TW 588.80
12'-0" Winnteka, IL 60093
10'-0"
TW 591.60
10'-0"
12'-0"
10'-0"
TW 584.00 EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS STAIRS
4'-0" LOCATION IS APPROXIMATELY 10 FT
TW 588.80
H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2025\25030 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park Revised\07 Graphics\01 SD\02 CAD\20260303 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg
SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY LINE
RESIDENT ACCESS GATE MAINTENANCE ACCESS GATE WEST FENCE AT DOG BEACH
WITH RELOCATED KEY SEE DETAIL 1, THIS SHEET CHAIN LINK FABRIC TO BE EXTEND
CENTENNIAL BEACH
FOB ACCESS 1'-0" BELOW SAND ELEVATION
ACCESS GATE,
SEE DETAIL 2, THIS SHEET SEE DETAIL 3, THIS SHEET
TIMER CONTROLLED
205 SHERIDAN RD
It's smart. It's free. It's the law.
261 SHERIDAN RD
Call
Before
You Dig
Call before
you dig.
ILLINOIS
ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811
ISSUED FOR PERMIT
March 3, 2026
REVISIONS
No Date Issue
CL 5' o.c., 4' o.c.,
typ. typ.
Double gate latch for
maintenance access Steel frame, attached to hinges Key Card Access for Gate hinges,
Residents mounted to gate
(2) Gate hinges,
mounted to gate
Fence Post (behind)
Steel frame, attached
to hinges
SITE FENCING
4' from sand elevation
Chain Link Fabric, typ.
Notes: PLAN
1. Posts to be driven into the sand and
underlying clay until refusal. Post will
then be cut 48" above the sand line
SCALE IN FEET
1' Chain Link Fabric
with 1'-0" of chain link fabric to be 1" = 20'
buried below grade for fence panels.
Gate panels shall not have buried
buried into sand
Post Footing driven to 0' 10' 20' 60'
refusal, typ. chain link fabric condition.
See Note NORTH SHEET NUMBER
1
Maintenance Access Gate at Dog Beach - Elevation
Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2
Resident Access Gate at Dog Beach - Elevation
Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3
West Fence at Dog Beach - Cross Section
Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"
C
L2.0
2026 The Lakota Group
Page 27 of 157
12'-0" 583 10'-0" 582 581 580 36'-6" 579 578 577
58
4 4'-0" High Water Line Chain Link Fencing Normal Water Line
ELEV 581.5 mounted to groin ELEV 578.6
Relocated Key 1 East Wacker Drive
10'-0"
Fob Access
Suite 2700
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Resident Access Gate p 312.467.5445
See Detail 2, Sheet L2.0 f 312.467.5484
4'-0" thelakotagroup.com
577
Embedded Fence
Posts, typ. 583 582 581 580 578
See notes 579
Plan
2" Line post mounted to groin, typ. PREPARED FOR
TW 588.80
evenly spaced, 10'-0" o.c. max. Chain link fencing, typ.
9'-1" eq.
1 83" dia. top rail
Winnetka Park
10'-0"
Sand Elevation
Fence ties, 12" o.c.
Modular fencing to be removed seasonally Existing Steel Groin
District
540 Hibbard Rd
4'-0" 4'-4"
Winnetka, IL 60093
3'-8" 3'-11" 3'-2"
2'-11"
High Water Line
3'-5" 2'-8"
2'-2"
584.00 TW 584.00
2'-5"
ELEV 581.5 CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH
TW 583.00
583.00
TW 582.50
582.00
Dog Beach
4'-10" from sand
5'-0" height
581.00
5'-0" height 5'-0" height
from sand
from sand from sand
580.00
579.00
Normal Water Line
ELEV 578.6 Fencing
elevation, typ.
elevation, typ
elevation, typ elevation 578.00
577.00
Alternate Plan 1
Notes:
1. Steel top rail to run continuously over multiple posts where shown. 225 Sheridan Rd
2. The eastern 20'-0" of fencing shall be removable fencing panels for seasonal damage prevention.
3. Posts shown over steel groin to be surface-mounted onto the steel groin.
Winnteka, IL 60093
4. At-grade fence posts to be driven into the sand and underlying clay until refusal. Post will then be cut
48" above the sand line with 1'-0" of chain link fabric to be buried below grade.
Elevation - North Dog Beach Fence
1 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2025\25030 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park Revised\07 Graphics\01 SD\02 CAD\20260303 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg
586 585 584 583 580 579 578 577
582 581
High Water Line
575
12'-0" ELEV 581.5
576
49'-3"
Normal Water Line
ELEV 578.6
5'-0" to It's smart. It's free. It's the law.
Call
Call before
Property Line
Before
You Dig
you dig.
1'-11" to
Chain Link Fencing ILLINOIS
ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811
Property Line
mounted to groin
Approximate location of stone steps is 10FT
south of WPD property line for public access
ISSUED FOR PERMIT
Plan March 3, 2026
REVISIONS
No Date Issue
2" Line post 2" Line post mounted Chain link fencing, typ. Approximate location of stone steps is 10 FT
driven into sand to groin, typ. 1 83" dia. top rail south of the WPD property line for public access
Sand Elevation See Notes. 9'-10" eq. evenly spaced, 10'-0"
588.80
o.c. max. Fence ties, 12" o.c.
Modular fencing to be removed seasonally
Existing Steel Groin
4'-0"
586.00
4'-11"
4'-0" 4'-2"
585.00
4'-0" 4'-2"
584.00 3'-9"
TW 583.00 TW 582.80 2'-4" 2'-6" High Water Line
Fence post
footing depth
583.00 582.00
TW 582.40 ELEV 581.5
FENCE
4'-8" height
TBD in Field, 581.00
5'-0" height from
ELEVATIONS
5'-0" height from
580.00 Normal Water Line
see Notes from sand
579.00 ELEV 578.6
elevation
sand elevation
sand elevation 578.00
SCALE IN FEET
1/4" = 1'-0"
Notes:
1. Steel top rail to run continuously over multiple posts where shown. 0' 2' 4' 12'
2. The eastern 20'-0" of fencing shall be removable fencing panels for seasonal damage prevention. NORTH SHEET NUMBER
3. Westernmost post identified in elevation to be driven into the sand and underlying clay until refusal. Post will
L3.0
then be cut 48" above the sand line with 1'-0" of chain link fabric to be buried below grade.
Elevation - South Dog Beach Fence
2 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
C 2026 The Lakota Group
Page 28 of 157
Winnetka Park District
540 Hibbard Road
Winnetka, Illinois 60093
February 13, 2026
Scott Mangum
Director of Community Development
Village of Winnetka
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, Illinois 60093
RE: Centennial Beach Dog Fencing – Alternate Plan 1 Revision Narrative
Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28-SU – 225 Sheridan Road
Dear Scott,
On February 6, 2026, the Winnetka Park District Board of Commissioners reviewed the dog
fencing proposal for Centennial Beach in consideration of the January 28, 2026 Plan
Commission comments, public input, and Village staff review comments from the initial Special
Use Permit review. Following that discussion, the Board directed staff to proceed with Alternate
Plan 1 (attached), which represents a material redesign in response to that feedback.
The original submittal proposed a contained enclosure defined by perpendicular fencing
extending toward Lake Michigan at both the north and south ends of the beach. During the
review process, concerns were raised regarding public safety, shoreline access, visual impact,
and the interaction between fencing and lake conditions. The revised plan shifts the project away
from installing new fencing across the beach to create an enclosed dog park. Instead, it uses the
existing shoreline infrastructure and beach geometry to define the dog beach limits while
maintaining continuous public access along the lakefront with a 12’ bypass to the west of the dog
beach area.
Page 29 of 157
Most notably, the revised design eliminates the previously proposed four-foot chain-link fence
runs at the north and south ends of the beach, thereby minimizing fencing located within active
wave zones. Rather than projecting fencing across the beach and into the lake to form an
enclosed area, Alternate Plan 1 attaches boundary fencing to the existing steel groins and
relocates the controlled entry point directly to beach level. This change significantly reduces the
perceived enclosure of the beach and removes physical barriers previously identified as potential
safety concerns. The relocated fencing runs will be modular, allowing seasonal removal of the
easternmost sections in areas subject to ice damming and winter lake conditions.
A dedicated pedestrian bypass corridor has also been incorporated into the revised design. This
feature allows residents and visitors to walk the shoreline without entering the dog beach area
and directly addresses concerns that general beach users would otherwise be required to pass
through an active off-leash area. By separating circulation paths, the revised layout improves
user clarity and reduces potential interaction conflicts between dog owners and non-dog users.
The bypass itself is shown on the attached Alternate Plan 1. It is created by installing a fence line
approximately twelve feet lakeward of the steel seawall at the toe of the bluff and extending
between the existing southern steel jetties. This run is approximately 265 feet in length and
reduces the overall dog beach frontage by approximately fifty percent. Integrated into this fence
line is the electronic key-fob entry gate, along with a secondary ten-foot maintenance access gate
that will remain locked and secured for staff use. The fence is proposed at an overall height of
five feet, with four feet exposed above grade and one foot buried below grade to accommodate
fluctuating sand levels and reduce the possibility of dogs digging beneath the fencing.
Operational control is further improved through relocation of the key-fob entry to beach level
and the use of a defined double-gate leash-up area. This eliminates the need for interior fencing
corridors while maintaining controlled access for permitted users. The double-entry gate system
is also a requirement of the Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control. In addition,
the revised plan substantially reduces the amount of fencing interacting with lake forces by
utilizing existing structural elements and shortening fence exposure in areas subject to wave and
ice movement. The existing steel shoreline structures are designed to withstand year-round lake
conditions, allowing the Park District to reduce the overall length of installed fencing.
For ease of review, the primary differences between the previously submitted plan and Alternate
Plan 1 are summarized below.
Page 30 of 157
Plan Comparison Summary
Previous Temporary Alternate Plan 1
Design Element Resulting Impact
Fencing Plan (Approved 2-6-26)
Enclosed containment Shoreline-defined
Reduces enclosed park
Overall Layout area formed by boundary using existing
appearance
perpendicular fencing groins
Approximately 15 ft Fencing attached to
Fencing Into Minimizes wave/ice
lakeward fence runs at existing structures with
Lake interaction risk
both ends reduced lake exposure
Public Shoreline Users pass through an 12-ft pedestrian bypass Maintains continuous
Access active off-leash dog area outside dog beach public access
Clearer entry and safer
Beach-level controlled circulation while
Access Control Inland gated corridor
entry vestibule improving access for non-
dog users
Double corridor Removes internal
Interior Fencing Eliminated
containment system obstacles
Safety Potential cross-traffic Separated circulation
Improves user safety
Considerations conflicts paths
Reduced fencing
Visible enclosure across Less intrusive shoreline
Visual Impact footprint at north and
beach presence
south boundaries
In summary, Alternate Plan 1 reduces the installation of new freestanding fence infrastructure at
the north and south boundaries by utilizing existing steel groins, improves shoreline access
through the addition of a defined pedestrian bypass, separates user groups to enhance safety, and
minimizes fencing interaction within active lake areas while still providing a controlled off-leash
area consistent with regulatory requirements. These revisions were intentionally developed in
direct response to Plan Commission discussion, public input, and Village staff feedback, and
intends to fully satisfy the applicable Special Use Permit standards. The design preserves the
open character of Centennial Beach while incorporating operational controls necessary to
manage off-leash use in a safe and regulated manner.
Page 31 of 157
Staff is also planning to discuss additional items with the Park Board at the February 26, 2026
meeting to obtain direction regarding the north beach area of Centennial Beach and how to
proceed. Staff will follow up after that meeting to inform the Village of any items related to SUP
Case No. 25-28-SU.
We appreciate the continued coordination with Village staff and look forward to the next steps in
the review process. Please let me know if any additional clarification would be helpful.
Sincerely,
Costa Kutulas
Director of Parks and Maintenance
Winnetka Park District
CC: Shannon Nazzal, Executive Director
Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community Development
Page 32 of 157
ATTACHMENT B1
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGEOF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: SCOTT MANGUM, DIRECTOR
ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2026
SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL BEACH FENCE – 225 SHERIDAN ROAD
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO. 25-28-SU)
INTRODUCTION
On February 9, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) is scheduled to commence a public hearing on
an application submitted by the Winnetka Park District (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property
located at 225 Sheridan Road (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant is proposing installation of fencing
on the existing beach located on the Subject Property and requests approval of the following relief:
1. Approval of a Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach on the
Subject Property, which is located in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District and the
Lakefront Preservation Overlay District.
The Plan Commission (“PC”) considered the special use permit at its January 28, 2026, meeting. By a vote
of 7-0, the PC asked the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written
findings and determinations based on the PC’s discussion for consideration at the February 25, 2026, PC
meeting. Details regarding the PC’s consideration are provided later in this report.
A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance, informing them of the public hearing being held by the ZBA. The hearing was also
properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on January 22, 2026. Additionally, a public notice sign was posted
on the Subject Property informing the public of the ZBA meeting. As of the date of this memo, staff has
received several written comments from the public regarding this application. Most of these comments
were received by the Village for consideration by the PC. Others have been received since the
Commission’s consideration of the Applicant’s request. Comments previously included in the PC agenda
packet are provided in Attachment B. Comments received since the posting of the January 28, 2026, PC
agenda packet are provided in Attachment C.
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this application, as the Council has sole authority to grant a
Special Use Permit.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property, which is approximately 5.3 acres (230,911.56 square feet) in size, is located on the
east side of Sheridan Road generally between Fuller Lane and Elder Lane and contains Centennial Beach
Page 1
Page 33 of 157
and Park (see Figure 1). Under the Village Zoning Ordinance, the Subject Property has two front yards: (i)
the street frontage along Sheridan Road to the west; and (ii) lake frontage along Lake Michigan to the
east.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Open Space” land uses,
which includes public parks & recreation facilities, pocket parks/plazas, and Cook County Forest Preserve
Land. The Comprehensive Plan also includes the following related goals:
Goal 1.7: The Village will continue to ensure that open space uses, such as Park District parks,
beaches, and facilities, are compatible with the residential neighborhoods in which they are
located.
Initiative 1.7.1: Study and consider establishing a specific zoning district for open space
uses, or specific zoning standards for such uses within existing residential districts. This
would allow more appropriate zoning standards for these uses.
Goal 6.1: The Village will continue to promote and encourage partnerships with other units of
government and agencies to conserve, restore, and enhance natural features and ecosystems, to
ensure accessibility to natural areas, parks, and other open or public spaces, and to support
recreational facilities and programs that support the health of residents of all ages and abilities.
Initiative 6.1.1. Continue to collaborate with the Park District, local school districts, Forest
Preserves of Cook County, and others to create opportunities that enhance accessibility
to the open spaces of Winnetka. (refer to initiative 8.3.5)
Initiative 6.1.2. Continue to collaborate with the Park District, School District, Library
District, Community House of Winnetka, and other community institutions to offer
programs that maintain active and thriving Village recreation programs, offering a
variety of sports, exercise, arts and crafts, cultural, life skills, educational, social, and
leisure programs for residents of all ages and abilities.
Goal 6.4: The Village will support health and wellness through innovative and diversified
recreational, learning, and cultural opportunities in its public parks, plazas, trails, and open
spaces.
Initiative 6.4.4. Support the efforts of the Park District and other community
organizations to expand and/or modify Winnetka’s recreational programming to fill gaps
in services.
Goal 6.5: The Village will support policies that preserve and protect the unique natural resources
of and the recreational opportunities provided by the Lake Michigan shoreline and bluffs.
Initiative 6.5.1. Continue to study and consider establishing development regulations
addressing construction of shoreline stabilization projects and specific recreational
projects in and adjacent to Lake Michigan and its shoreline that will not cause
environmental damage to or interfere with the greater recreational opportunities
provided by the Lake and adjacent areas. [Ordinance MC-05-2023 was adopted by the
Village Council on March 21, 2023, which created a new chapter of Village Code –
Chapter 15.78 Lakefront Construction.]
Page 34 of 157
Initiative 6.5.2. Study and consider establishing development regulations that requires
construction on and adjacent to the bluffs along the Lake Michigan shoreline that
protects, restores, and manages the stability of the bluffs and natural shoreline and that
are contextually sensitive to the natural features of the bluffs. [Ordinance MC-01-2024
was adopted by the Village Council on February 6, 2024, amending the Zoning Ordinance
concerning establishing bluff regulations for development in the steep slope area along
Lake Michigan.]
The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and is in the Lakefront Preservation Overlay
District, and it is bordered by R-2 Single Family Residential to the north and south, and R-4 Single Family
Residential to the west (see Figure 2).
In addition to single-family residential uses, the R-2 District allows a limited range of additional uses by
Special Use Permit. Allowed Special Uses in the R-2 District include (a) church or temple; (b) public
school, elementary and high, or private school having a curriculum equivalent to a public elementary
school, public high school or public institution of higher learning; and (c) library. In addition, the Zoning
Ordinance allows park and recreational uses in any zoning district within the Village by special use permit
approval.
The Applicant’s current use of the Subject Property as a park and recreational facility is generally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-2 zoning district. The Applicant
recently used the Subject Property as an off-leash dog area as well.
Subject
Property
Figure 1 – GIS Aerial Map
Page 35 of 157
Subject
Property
Figure 2 – Zoning Map
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
Based upon documents provided by the Applicant, it appears that the Applicant has owned the Subject
Property since 1969. There are six (6) previous zoning cases on file for the Subject Property, five of which
occurred prior to the Applicant acquiring the Subject Property:
1. In 1923, ZBA Case No. 43 was approved to allow an addition to a nonconforming use for the North
Shore Health Resort;
2. In 1945, ZBA Case No. 702 was approved to allow the alteration of a nonconforming use and
building for the North Shore Health Resort;
3. In 1949, ZBA Case No. 751 was not approved to allow a building addition to the North Shore
Health Resort;
4. In 1951, ZBA Case No. 776 was not approved to allow enclosure of the front entrance of the North
Shore Health Resort;
5. In 1964, ZBA Case No. 935 was approved to allow the extension of a nonconforming use (North
Shore Health Resort) with the construction of an accessory building; and
6. In December 2024, Case No. 24-08-SU received a recommendation of approval from the Zoning
Board of Appeals for zoning variations and exceptions from the steep slope regulations, subject
to approval by the Village Council of a special use permit, for which the ZBA recommended denial
of, to allow improvements to the existing park and beach on the Subject Property. In May 2025,
the Plan Commission (PC) recommended denial of the special use permit and steep slope
exceptions. The application has been on hold at the Applicant’s request, since the PC made its
recommendation. The application still requires review by the Design Review Board before being
considered by the Village Council. It is the Village’s understanding that the Applicant is revising
its previous plans and upon a revised submittal it is anticipated that the application will be
considered first by the advisory bodies before it is considered by the Village Council.
Figures 3 and 4 on the following page are current photos of the Subject Property. Figures 5 through 8
were taken in the summer of 2024.
Page 36 of 157
Figure 3 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (January 2026)
Figure 4 – Subject Property – Looking South at Existing Steel Groin on Centennial Beach & Stone Groin
at 205 Sheridan Road Property (January 2026)
Page 37 of 157
Figure 5 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
Figure 6 – Subject Property – Looking South at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
Page 38 of 157
Figure 7 – Subject Property – Looking North from Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
LAKEFRONT CONSTRUCTION AND STEEP SLOPE ORDINANCES
Given the Subject Property is located along Lake Michigan it is subject to the lakefront construction
ordinance, Chapter 15.78 of the Village Code, and the steep slope regulations, Chapter 17.82 of the Village
Code. However, it is important to note that the proposed fence is not located within the steep slope zone;
it is located lakeward of the toe of the bluff.
The requirements of both chapters are administratively reviewed and approved by staff (in this case after
zoning approval). However, an applicant may appeal the decision of staff regarding the application of the
lakefront construction ordinance to the Village Council or may request exceptions from the steep slope
requirements.
The lakefront construction regulations govern construction along, adjacent to, and within Lake Michigan.
A permit pursuant to the lakefront construction ordinance is required for any construction activity within
Lake Michigan regulated areas that requires a permit from any of the following governmental agencies
(“Permitting Agencies”): the United States Army Corp of Engineers, the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, or the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (collectively, "Covered Construction"). Typical construction activity relates to beach
preservation, which consists of steel or stone groins, revetments/bulkheads/seawalls, or other means of
lakefront stabilization and preservation. The Village’s formal review and approval of such a permit occurs
after the applicable zoning approvals and the regulatory agencies review and approve their respective
permits. The Village’s review and approval is conducted administratively by the Village Director of
Engineering in consultation with the applicant and the Village’s coastal engineering consultant. This
review is based upon a set of criteria identified in the regulations.
Page 39 of 157
Figure 8 - Existing Sea Wall on Subject Property (Summer 2024)
The technical review and approval of proposed plans set forth in the lakefront construction regulations
and the steep slope regulations occurs during the building permit process, which occurs after the zoning
entitlement process (e.g. special use, variations, etc.). That said, during Village staff’s review of a zoning
entitlement application, Village staff and consultants will conduct a preliminary review of the project for
code requirements to determine if the development should be able to, in general terms, comply with
administrative code requirements. Detailed construction plans are not required at this time, but the
applicant is required to provide sufficient information so staff can determine whether the proposed site
layout can be achieved and still comply with other Village regulations as noted above. If after the Village
Council approves a special use permit and during the building permit process an applicant changes the
design of the project to such an extent that it would be considered a major change, the applicant would
be required to go through the full special use permit process again before staff issues a building permit.
Regarding the Centennial Beach zoning relief application, the Applicant has submitted plans for the
proposed fence that have been reviewed by the Village Director of Engineering and Village’s coastal
engineer. The Engineering Department has provided comments to the Applicant. The Village Director of
Engineering has determined that the responses provided by the Applicant address the review comments.
The Applicant is aware that all of the approved permits from the Permitting Agencies will need to be
provided, and a special use permit granted before the Engineering Department can issue final approval.
Each advisory board and commission will review the application based upon the applicable standards for
that advisory body. Their review is based upon these broad standards and not based upon a review of
the technical code requirements for such items as the Village’s stormwater requirements, building code
requirements, lakefront construction approval criteria, or steep slope regulation development standards.
Those technical items are reviewed in detail administratively by qualified engineering staff during the
building permit process.
Page 40 of 157
PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE
Given the proposed improvements are located along the lakefront, it is important to review the nature
and extent of the “public trust doctrine”. Generally, the “public trust doctrine” is a concept based upon
an 1892 United States Supreme Court decision that held that lands under the navigable waters of Lake
Michigan are held by the state in trust for the people of the state. This doctrine has since been codified
by Illinois statue. Illinois courts have held that the boundary between private land and land owned by the
state in public trust is “the line where the water usually [stands] when unaffected by storms or other
disturbing causes.” This line is variously referred to as the “water’s edge,” “still water shoreline,” “calm
waterline,” “unaffected waterline,” or the “normal waterline.” Accordingly, in Illinois the boundary
between private land and public land is the point at which the water normally stands (the "Normal
Waterline").
A rule of thumb that generally applies in Illinois and other jurisdictions that rely on the Normal Waterline
for the public-private property demarcation is that if your feet are wet, you are on public property, and if
your feet are dry then you are on private property. Based on these principles, the demarcation line in
Illinois between public and private land is the same demarcation line that identifies where land held in
trust begins and ends – both lines are the Normal Waterline.
The Illinois Supreme Court has held that the public trust doctrine for Lake Michigan extends “to
recreational uses, including bathing, swimming and other shore activities.”
The Normal Waterline may change over time as a result of various processes, including accretion, reliction,
and erosion. Gradual changes to the Normal Waterline over time resulting in either increases or decreases
in the amount of dry land are an “inherent and essential attribute of the original property,” and the
property line changes with the Normal Waterline. However, if the addition or loss of property is sudden
(i.e., caused by a violent storm), then the property line does not change The test of what change is gradual,
as opposed to sudden, is “that though the witnesses may see from time to time that progress has been
made, they could not perceive it while the process was going on”. Although a riparian owner may protect
his property from erosion, he has no right to affect an increase of his own land, the result of which is a
corresponding loss of land owned by the state in trust for the public.
Under these principles, the owner of real estate fronting on Lake Michigan generally owns the property
to the Normal Waterline, and the land east of the Normal Waterline is owned by the state in trust for the
public.
PROPOSED PLAN
The Applicant is proposing installation of two rows of chain-link fencing, measuring 4 feet in height, set
back 20 feet from both the north and south boundaries of Centennial Beach. The proposed fencing would
be located at the base of the existing steel sheet pile wall and extend perpendicularly eastward across the
beach into the lake. As described by the Applicant in the attached project narrative included in
Attachment A, the purpose of the fencing is to provide an enclosure to allow off-leash dogs on the beach.
The existing beach has been utilized as a dog beach since 1995, according to the Applicant. Patrons are
required to have a key fob to access the existing beach from the top of the bluff above. The proposed
fencing would enclose the beach area for dogs to be off-leash. Both the north and south fence would
have access gates to allow the public to traverse the beach. The Applicant indicates in its narrative that
they are planning for the access gates to remain unlocked, with the current key fob controlled access gate
to remain at the top of bluff.
Page 41 of 157
North Fence. The north fence would extend a total of 91 feet from the existing steel sheet pile wall at the
base of the bluff east towards the water (Figure 10). Approximately 40 feet of the fence would extend
from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (581.5) into the lake. There would be a double access gate
10 feet in width to allow unleashing and leashing of dogs. The depth of the leashing and unleashing area
would be 6 feet. The proposed access gate would be 24 feet east of the existing steel sheet pile wall, and
approximately 17 feet west of the OHWM.
South Fence. The south fence would extend approximately 78 feet from the existing steel sheet pile wall
east towards the water (Figure 11). Approximately 36 feet of the fence would extend from the OHWM
into the lake. The double access gate would be located 16 feet east of the steel sheet pile and be 3’-3” in
width. Similar to the north access, the depth of the leashing and unleashing area would be 6 feet.
In response to staff review comments, including the Village’s coastal engineering consultant, the lakeward
sections of fencing (east four or five sections) would be removable, so that these sections can be removed
during late fall and winter and reinstalled in the spring.
The proposed site plan and up-close excerpts of both the north and south fences, as well as elevations of
the proposed fencing and gates are provided below and on the following pages. The complete set of plans
is provided in the application materials, which are included in Attachment A.
OHWM
(Front Lot Line)
Proposed
Existing Stairs to Beach South Fence
(key fob access) and Gate
Proposed Existing Steel
North Fence Sheet Pile Wall
and Gate
Figure 9 –Site Fencing Plan (Sheet L2.0)
Page 42 of 157
OHWM
(Front Lot Line)
Property Line Between
Centennial Park & Beach
and 261 Sheridan Road
Proposed
Access Gate
Figure 10 – Proposed North Fence (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0)
Property Line
Between Centennial
Park & Beach and 205
Sheridan Road
Proposed
OHWM
Access Gate
(Front Lot Line)
Figure 11 – Proposed South Fence (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0)
Page 43 of 157
As proposed, to walk along the beach from the north end to the south end of the Subject Property, or vice
versa, a member of the public would need to use the proposed access gates and walk through the dog
beach. As noted earlier, both rows of fencing would be off-set from the north and south property lines
by 20 feet, allowing for a pathway to access the stairs that go over the 205 Sheridan Road stone groin.
Figure 12 – Proposed North Access Gate Figure 13 – Proposed South Access Gate
Figure 14 – Elevation of North Fence
Figure 15 – Elevation of South Fence
Fence and wall height within required setbacks. With the adoption of the steep slope regulations, the
Village also amended the Zoning Ordinance to redefine the front line along the lake as well as the front
yard setback along the lake. The front lot line is now the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and is defined
as the line on the shore of Lake Michigan consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ administrative
benchmark, which is currently set at 581.5’. The front yard setback along the lake is now defined as the
toe of the bluff or 50 feet from the OHWM, whichever results in the line farthest from the OHWM.
The Zoning Ordinance allows fences, walls, or a combination of a fence and wall within a required yard
that is no taller than 6.5 feet from natural grade. While the proposed fence is located within the required
front yard, at a height of 4 feet, it complies with the maximum permitted height. Therefore, the proposed
fence complies with the zoning regulations.
Page 44 of 157
CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
The Plan Commission (“PC”) considered the special use permit on January 28, 2026. After hearing
presentations by Village staff and by the Applicant, the PC heard from 16 members of the public. At least
15 of the speakers spoke in opposition to the proposed plan. The PC then discussed the request.
Members expressed concerns regarding safety of the fencing in the water and people having to walk
through an area designated for dogs to be off-leash in order to traverse the beach. Hence, the
Commission found that the proposed use does not meet the standards for granting a special use permit.
After hearing the comments of the PC, the Applicant asked if a plan was submitted that eliminated the
fencing in the water and provided for a by-pass for public access around the dog beach would the PC
reconsider its position. The PC was not receptive to an amended plan being presented to them at a future
meeting. Therefore, by a vote of 7-0, the PC asked the Village Attorney to prepare a draft
recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations based on the Commission’s
discussion for consideration at the next PC meeting on February 25, 2026. Draft minutes of the January
PC meeting are included as Attachment D.
The Design Review Board is scheduled to consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed
fencing on February 19, 2026.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
The ZBA is charged with evaluating Special Uses for consistency with the six standards for granting specials
use permits. In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant has provided
a statement of justification regarding how the requested Special Use Permit meets the standards for
granting the requested Special Use Permit.
After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the ZBA will have the following options:
1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with
additional time to address questions and comments from the ZBA.
2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Special Use. If the ZBA is prepared
to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested relief, a ZBA member
should make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the
following standards and direct staff and the Village Attorney to prepare written findings and
determinations for the ZBA’s consideration and final vote at a subsequent meeting:
1. The proposed improvement is consistent [is not consistent] with the Standards for the
granting of Special Use Permits, as follows:
a. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the special use and
associated exceptions will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort, morals or general welfare;
b. That the special use and the associated exceptions will not be substantially
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
which are permitted by right in the district or districts of concern, nor substantially
diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity;
c. That the establishment of the special use and associated exceptions will not
impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of other property in
the immediate vicinity for uses permitted by right in the district or districts of
concern;
Page 45 of 157
d. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress
in a manner which minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the
public ways;
e. That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities
necessary to the operation of the special use exist or are to be provided; and
f. That the special use and associated exceptions in all other respects conforms to
the applicable regulations of this and other Village ordinances and codes.
As noted above, any motion on a decision by the ZBA should direct the Village Attorney to prepare
written findings and determinations for the ZBA to consider and vote on at a subsequent meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Materials
Attachment B: Public Correspondence Previously Included in PC Agenda Packet
Attachment C: Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of January 28, 2026, PC Agenda Packet
Attachment D: January 28, 2026, PC Meeting Draft Minutes Excerpt
Page 46 of 157
ATTACHMENT A
Page 47 of 157
Page 48 of 157
Page 49 of 157
Page 50 of 157
Page 51 of 157
Page 52 of 157
Page 53 of 157
Page 54 of 157
Dog Shower Amenities (Looking Northwest)
Dog Beach Access Gate (Looking East)
Page 55 of 157
Dog Beach Access Stairs (Looking East)
Dog Beach Access Stairs Beach Level (Looking South)
Page 56 of 157
Dog Beach Stairs Beach View (Looking West)
Dog Beach (Looking North)
Page 57 of 157
North Seawall (Looking West)
North Seawall (Looking Northwest)
Page 58 of 157
Dog Beach (Looking South)
Bog Beach (Looking South)
Page 59 of 157
Dog Beach South Property Line (Looking West)
Dog Beach Seawall (Looking West)
Page 60 of 157
Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk (Looking South)
Mid-level Bluff Paver and Bench Area (Looking Southwest)
Page 61 of 157
Mid-level Bluff Paver and Bench Area (Looking West)
Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk (Looking South)
Page 62 of 157
Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk to Park Area (Looking West)
Upper Bench Southeast Section of Upper Parkland
Page 63 of 157
Upper Park Sidewalk Southwest Corner of the Park (Looking East)
Upper Park Sidewalk South End (Looking East)
Page 64 of 157
Upper Park (Looking South)
Upper Park (Looking East)
Page 65 of 157
Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking North)
Upper Park Center East Side (Looking East)
Page 66 of 157
Upper Park Center Overlooking Dog Entry Gate (Looking East)
Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking North)
Page 67 of 157
Upper Park Area (Looking Southwest)
Upper Park Area (Looking Northeast)
Page 68 of 157
Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking Southwest)
Sheridan Road Sidewalk South side of Park (Looking North)
Page 69 of 157
Page 70 of 157
Page 71 of 157
Page 72 of 157
Page 73 of 157
ATTACHMENT D
Minutes adopted 2-25-2026
1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT
2 JANUARY 28, 2026
3
4 Members Present: Layla Danley, Chairperson
5 Jonathan Alt
6 Christopher Blum
7 Matthew Bradley
8 Mamie Case
9 Chris Enck
10 King Poor
11 Kate Van Vlack
12
13 Members Absent: Cyrus Subawalla
14
15 Non-Voting Members Present: Bridget Orsic
16
17 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Community Development Director
18 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community
19 Development
20 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner
21
22 Village Attorney: Peter Friedman
23 Courtney Trefil
24
25 ***
26
27 New Applications:
28 a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: An application seeking approval of a
29 Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach. The Village Council has final
30 jurisdiction on this request.
31 Peter Friedman outlined the public hearing requirements and procedures to be followed in connection
32 with the Centennial Beach agenda item.
33 Ms. Klaassen summarized the Park District’s proposal to install two chain link fences to provide an
34 enclosed area for off leashed dogs for review by the Commission with the applicant seeking a
35 recommendation of approval for a special use permit. She identified the Commission’s role in the review
36 and summarized the administrative and public review processes and referred to a table for the
37 Commission’s review. Ms. Klaassen noted the proposed fences’ appearance is not within the
38 Commission’s purview and would be reviewed by the Design Review Board (“DRB”).
39
40 Ms. Klaassen stated since the property is located on Lake Michigan, it would be subject to lakefront
41 construction and steep slope regulations and noted the proposed fencing is not located within the steep
42 slope zone. She then summarized the lakefront construction regulations and the review and permit
43 approval procedures as well as the public trust doctrine. Ms. Klaassen then identified the property’s
44 location and zoning classification which is located in the lakefront preservation overlay district. She stated
45 public parks and recreational facilities are allowed as a special use in the R-2 district and summarized the
46 appropriate Comprehensive Plan and land use designations.
47
48 Ms. Klaassen referred to beach images in an illustration and identified the existing improvements with the
Page 74 of 157
January 28, 2026 Page 2
1 applicant to provide additional detail relating to the proposed two rows of chain link fencing which she
2 described in detail to the Commission as well as the existing dog beach use and its access. She also
3 summarized the Zoning Ordinance amendment relating to the refinement of the front lot line along the
4 lake. Ms. Klaassen noted that at 4 feet in height the proposed fences comply with the maximum permitted
5 height of 6.5 feet. She then informed the Commission the ZBA is scheduled to consider the special use
6 permit at its February 9, 2026, meeting and the DRB is scheduled to consider a Certificate of
7 Appropriateness for the design of the proposed fencing on February 19, 2026, with the Village Council
8 having final jurisdiction.
9
10 Ms. Klaassen stated the Commission is to consider the six special use standards included on page 19 of
11 the agenda packet and following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Commission
12 discussion, the Commission may decide to: (i) act on the application with a recommendation, (ii) direct
13 Village staff and the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation with or without conditions and
14 written findings and determinations for consideration at a subsequent meeting, (iii) direct the applicant
15 or Village staff to provide new or additional information in connection with the application or (iv) take
16 such other action as may be permitted by law. She then asked if there were any questions.
17
18 Chairperson Danley also asked if there were any questions. Ms. Van Vlack asked if dogs have ever been
19 allowed off leash on the property before there was a fence. Ms. Klaassen responded there has not been
20 a special use permit approved for that and there are leash laws. She then stated she could not answer as
21 to whether Cook County considered it a dog park or a dog friendly area. Mr. Blum referred to recreation
22 as a permitted use and asked if the request had to be approved or meet those qualifications. Ms. Klaassen
23 confirmed the request for the proposed improvements had to meet the six special use standards. No
24 additional questions were raised at this time.
25
26 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Hal Francke of Meltzer Purtill and Stelle
27 introduced himself as the Park District’s attorney and provided an overview of their presentation to the
28 Commission. He noted they attempted to address in their presentation the public comment already
29 received with the expectation of more public comment to be made. Mr. Francke then described the dog
30 beach as a community amenity and that the request would allow the Park District to continue to operate
31 the dog beach in accordance with law and the legal regulations as well as allow users of the dog beach in
32 compliance with the law. He stated the proposed fencing would further public safety and maintain
33 shoreline access and connectivity along the lakefront and would not require any zoning variation requests.
34
35 Mr. Francke then provided an overview of the Winnetka leash law as well as a detailed summary of the
36 Cook County regulations. He also referred to Illinois state law and language in the Illinois Animal Control
37 Act. Mr. Francke stated Costa Kutulas, Director of Parks and Maintenance for the Park District, would now
38 provide the Commission with a history of the Centennial dog beach.
39
40 Costa Kutulas stated he would provide a history of the dog beach which was established in 1995. He noted
41 the Park District installed temporary chain link fencing from 2009-2015 similar in design to the proposal
42 which did not require permits. Mr. Kutulas stated the Winnetka Master Plan for the lakefront was then
43 undertaken from 2014-2016 with the decision to remove the deteriorating fence. He outlined the creation
44 of the dog beach committee to review other beach locations to relocate the Centennial dog beach and its
45 findings. Mr. Kutulas stated in 2023, their staff was directed by the Executive Director to install the
46 temporary fencing which was pulled due to improper permitting. He noted the Park District board adopted
47 the ordinance requiring leashes at the beach. Submittals to the IDNR and the Army Corp of Engineers
48 (“ACOE”) for the permit request were made in April 2025. Mr. Kutulas stated following the fence and
Page 75 of 157
January 28, 2026 Page 3
1 debris cleanup, he referred to approvals received from the IDNR and other agencies for their permit
2 process with the ACOE and Cook County approvals to follow shortly.
3
4 Mr. Kutulas then described the project overview which included delineation between a temporary
5 Centennial dog beach versus Centennial dog beach fencing. He also described the proposed fencing in
6 detail which would have a 4 foot height and extend approximately 15 feet into the lake. Mr. Kutulas then
7 referred to illustrations of the prior fencing from 2010 as well as illustrations of the proposed fencing
8 which he described in detail. Mr. Kutulas then outlined the existing parking conditions with no change in
9 use being proposed and described the dog season timeline and timeline of average use. He also described
10 neighboring dog beaches and their uses in detail. He then summarized the project’s regulatory review
11 process as well as their responses to the first round of review comments. Mr. Kutulas stated Mr. Francke
12 would now address the public trust doctrine and additional finer project points.
13
14 Mr. Francke stated in response to the public concerns raised, he referred to the public trust doctrine
15 summary and provided additional information in that regard. He noted it stated that the state cannot sell
16 submerged land to a private party, but it can permit its improvement with structures such as wharfs, docks
17 and piers that improve the use of the lake for public purposes without impairment of the public’s interests.
18 He stated based on its provisions, the IDNR issued the permit previously referenced and reviewed the
19 Park District’s application and concluded that allowing the proposed fencing would not obstruct or
20 interfere with navigation, is an acceptable encroachment per the Park District code, it would not impair
21 the rights, interests or uses of the public and is not likely to cause bank or shoreline instability or other
22 littoral properties. Mr. Francke further described additional provisions from the doctrine and summarized
23 in detail the applicant’s response that the special use standards have been satisfied. He asked for the
24 Commission to recommend approval of the fencing and for the entire application to be concluded quickly
25 so that the fencing can be installed. Mr. Francke then asked if there were any questions.
26
27 Chairperson Danley asked the Commission Members if they had any questions. Ms. Van Vlack asked if
28 there is any record of unintended interactions between dogs and humans in the event additional security
29 measures are needed. Mr. Francke responded there have been no concerns at the Park District level
30 although there may have been testimony in the public comments received. Ms. Van Vlack asked what the
31 depth of the water is where the 15 feet of fence is in the water. Mr. Kutulas stated there have been no
32 documented records of interactions with dogs or citations although there were concerns which led to the
33 fence being installed in 2009 at Elder Lane Park, which has been closed for the last five years. He added
34 the water depth at the end of the 15 feet would range from 1 to 1.5 feet.
35
36 Ms. Van Vlack noted dog park regulations require four enclosed walls and water is not a barrier. She stated
37 to call the area a dog park would not then be accurate in terms of Cook County regulations. Mr. Francke
38 stated the word “enclosed” is used in the Cook County regulations but is not defined and the question
39 related to the lake being considered as part of the enclosure. He then identified several similar examples
40 of other dog beaches having the fourth side barrier being the lake. Ms. Van Vlack questioned whether it
41 would need to be redefined as a dog friendly park. Mr. Francke stated the term “dog friendly park” is not
42 clearly defined and having the fence extend across the length of the shoreline to serve as the fourth barrier
43 is not desirable. Ms. Van Vlack stated they have to determine which rules need to be defined and applied.
44
45 Trustee Orsic referred to the 2010 photo and fence and asked if the new fence would be in the same exact
46 location. Mr. Kutulas explained that the fence in the photo is approximately 20-30 feet south of the
47 proposed fence location. He noted to enlarge it and keep it more close to what it is or what it was
48 originally to go further to the north. Mr. Kutulas stated by design that it is very similar. He noted it would
Page 76 of 157
January 28, 2026 Page 4
1 be smaller than the previous dog park by approximately 40 feet.
2
3 Mr. Blum asked if the proposal is for a dog park or for a dog friendly area. Mr. Francke explained the
4 differences in the language between the Cook County ordinance for a dog park and the Village ordinance
5 which did not distinguish between the two terms of off leash dogs or a dog friendly area. He confirmed
6 the Park District wanted to be in compliance with the law. Mr. Blum then referred to the second and fifth
7 standards and whether the lake is considered as a second property. Mr. Francke responded the
8 application of special uses standards for adjoining properties are those that are used, occupied and
9 enjoyed by neighbors. He confirmed there is fencing in the Lake Bluff example which is not a chain link
10 fence with the remaining examples to have at least one chain link portion. Mr. Kutulas explained how the
11 dog beach operated seasonally. He also summarized in detail the survey response for the dog beach
12 location.
13
14 Ms. Case asked if other municipalities have gates in terms of traversing the beach. Mr. Kutulas referred to
15 Lake Bluff and identified a gate on the southbound side and described security procedures in other
16 locations. Mr. Bradley asked when the Cook County regulation was passed. Mr. Kutulas responded the
17 Park District was made aware in 2021 or 2022 that they were out of compliance with the county. Mr.
18 Bradley asked why the Park District put their ordinance into effect to disregard it, and for over 30 years
19 there has been negligence by multiple entities in terms of being aware of Cook County regulations that
20 required dog beaches to operate. Mr. Kutulas explained how they sought to become compliant in 2009
21 when the fence was put in place to have a north safety boundary and to ensure they are following the
22 proper permitting and procedures. Mr. Francke added the dog beach had already been operating after
23 the ordinance went into effect in 2010 and could be perceived as being grandfathered in. Mr. Bradley
24 asked why two gates are needed. Mr. Kutulas explained the reasoning for the off-leashing and on-leashing
25 area in a secured area. He also explained the rationale for the distance of the 15 feet of fencing into the
26 water and the rationale for having 240 linear feet of shoreline as opposed to the 170 feet decided on the
27 Park District Master Plan. He then explained how the request complied with the first two standards
28 although residents are required to pass through two gates to gain access to the beach through the dog
29 beach with compliance including the installation of signage. He referred to the number of obstructions
30 which prevent people from walking along the shoreline. Mr. Francke also stated the Commission has the
31 ability to recommend conditions relating to this concern.
32
33 Mr. Poor referred to other chain link fences at other dog beaches and to a letter submitted which stated
34 that none of them protrude 15 feet into the water. Mr. Francke confirmed they all have fencing at some
35 level and the Gillson Beach photo was taken at a time of year when the fence was not in the water. No
36 additional questions were raised at this time.
37
38 Chairperson Danley asked for public comment and for the comments to focus on issues which have not
39 been raised. She then swore in those speaking to this matter.
40
41 John Root referred to Section 6.8.20 of the Village ordinance prohibiting dogs from running at large. He
42 stated an exception to the ordinance would be approved to have this fence and referred to a photo of
43 Gillson Beach which showed a fence at the water line. Mr. Root also referred to photos of other beaches
44 where the fences do not extend into the lake.
45
46 Joanna Karatzas from Winnetka described the plans for the off leash dog beach as vague and misleading
47 and she read her statement into the record. She asked for the special use permit to be denied.
48
Page 77 of 157
January 28, 2026 Page 5
1 Laurie Peterson read Mary Garrison’s letter into the record who asked for the special use permit request
2 to be denied.
3
4 Mark Hecht from Winnetka described the proposed plan as an ill-conceived use of Village and Park District
5 property with there being better ways to handle the issue. He suggested entirely prohibiting dogs from all
6 lakefront property during regular swimming hours and allow everyone to freely use the entire lakefront.
7 Mr. Hecht also suggested the use of stone jetties with the suggestion that these alternatives be used for
8 a couple of years to determine if they are effective.
9
10 Jude Overly, a 33 year Fuller Lane resident, stated she has never seen any aggressive behaviors over her
11 years of using the beach and there is no need to have a fence to protect dogs and residents. She described
12 incidents of dogs having issues with fences. Ms. Overly referred to one particular non-Winnetka resident
13 who hoped for the fence and asked for the application to be denied and for the dog beach to be left open
14 for all residents and their dogs.
15
16 Susie Schreiber, past Park District commissioner and a past member of this Commission, read a statement
17 into the record which referred to the numerous amount of accidents and deaths in Illinois beach state
18 parks and along the shorelines as well as the lack of Illinois shoreline safety regulations. She concluded by
19 asking for the terminology of shoals not to be used in reference to Centennial beach.
20
21 Irene Smith, a 40 year Winnetka resident, referred the Commission to a photo of Centennial Beach and
22 described the Park District’s convoluted proposal to have a fence in the lake. She stated creating a cage
23 for the limited number of Winnetka pass holders did not make sense. Ms. Smith stated the waters are
24 navigable and did not contain shoals and asked for the special use permit be denied.
25
26 Angie Dahl, a 40 year Winnetka resident, stated she has served as a Park District President and on several
27 Village advisory boards. She described the unsafe and impassable condition of the beach which has
28 occurred over the years. Ms. Dahl stated when the public went to the IDNR to ask for clarification with
29 regard to several lakefront matters, the response was that the Village could have denied all of the
30 approvals since the Village has final jurisdiction over the lakefront. She then referred to the amount of
31 complaints with regard to the proposal and asked the Commission to deny the request.
32
33 Alexandra Nichols, 900 Mt. Pleasant, stated there are serious safety concerns with fences at the dog beach
34 and there has been a violation of the doctrine of public use. She then read her statement into the record
35 and asked for the special use permit be denied.
36
37 Peggy Martay, a 50 year Winnetka resident, read her statement into the record and asked for the special
38 use permit to be denied.
39
40 Steve Juliusson, a 20 year Winnetka resident, read his statement into the record and asked for the special
41 use permit to be denied.
42
43 Susan Curry, 375 Hawthorn, stated the dog beach and park are important to the community and the
44 described discussions relating to moving some of those facilities to other parts of the area as off. She
45 described the dog beach as a family beach and stated they can all come together find a way for everyone
46 to enjoy the beach. Ms. Curry also stated she had not heard of any issues regarding safety or security with
47 there being diversity across the waterfront and concluded nothing needed to be changed.
48
Page 78 of 157
January 28, 2026 Page 6
1 Katie Stevens referred to the restrictive covenant signed between Orchard 2020 and the Park District
2 which did not include a fence permit at that time and would freeze Centennial Beach’s use for 50 years.
3 She stated the fencing may become permanent and may end up on private land with a land swap. Ms.
4 Stevens also referred to access limitations with fencing becoming a nuisance and referred to specific code
5 requirements.
6
7 David Stevens, Winnetka resident, referred to the referenced water depth which would be well over 3
8 feet and would present a restriction in terms of those who want to use the beach.
9
10 Ted Wynnychenko asked for the special use permit to not be approved and referred to the half-truths
11 being presented at this meeting. He also referred to fences and restrictions at other beaches, the lack of
12 shoals, etc. Mr. Wynnychenko questioned the Park District’s right to put a fence across the high water
13 mark area and referred to the binding exchange agreement in place with regard to the overlay district
14 requirements which would result in private land ownership.
15
16 Melissa Meizel, a 30 year Winnetka resident, referred to the 460 linear foot proposal and contemplated
17 use by dog owners which she described as an excessive allocation of resources. She also referred to
18 whether it would be a dog beach, dog park and that “temporary” would result in “until further notice.”
19 Ms. Meizel stated there has been no investigation in connection with fences at other beaches other than
20 the one which supported the applicant’s position. She concluded they are being treated with ambiguity,
21 obfuscation, distortion, etc. and asked for the special use permit to be denied. No additional comments
22 were made at this time.
23
24 Chairperson Danley closed public comment and asked the applicant if they would like to respond at this
25 time.
26
27 Mr. Francke clarified the reason as to why Mr. Kutulas explained the term “temporary fencing” in some
28 places and not others. He also stated with regard to the plan being presented in bits and pieces, the Park
29 District is working on plans for Elder and Centennial Beaches following the Commission’s consideration of
30 the prior plan in 2025 which is what was intended by the term “temporary.” Mr. Francke also referred to
31 the written comment relating to guidelines with regard to temporary approval which the Park District
32 would not be opposed to. He stated with regard to the dog beach size, if these concerns are shared and
33 recognizing the shared beach and making it a condition that the Park District explore alternatives including
34 a design which did not require pass through. Mr. Francke stated there are alternatives to address a
35 number of responses made.
36
37 Chairperson Danley called the matter in for discussion and summarized the issue presented to the
38 Commission as to whether the fencing met the standards. Mr. Alt stated he would not be in favor for a
39 number of reasons and referred to the waste of time and money the Park District continued to bring to
40 the Commission and others. He stated while the presentation was strong, he asked the applicant to put
41 together a plan that is safe and would work for the community. Ms. Van Vlack stated the Commission
42 should not decide what the dog beach should be called and although delineation would have been helpful,
43 she identified the tasks the Commission is to consider. She stated based on the presentation, it is not clear
44 that the proposal met that documented necessity and she also had an issue of approving an item
45 categorized as temporary. Ms. Van Vlack concluded she would not vote in favor of the request.
46
47 Mr. Enck agreed with the comments made and stated generally, if a fence is needed for use separation
48 but it is only three sided, it did not meet that requirement and no one wants a four sided fence. He stated
Page 79 of 157
January 28, 2026 Page 7
1 extending the fence an arbitrary distance into the lake did not solve the issue. Ms. Case agreed with the
2 comments made and stated standards (a) and (b) have not been met. She stated she is concerned with
3 regard to safety in terms of the fence in the water and having to go through four air locks to get to the
4 beach. Ms. Case stated the Commission is being asked to approve something in a vacuum when they do
5 not know what the rest of the proposal would be. Mr. Blum agreed with the comments made and
6 indicated the ZBA may address the issue of increased parking. He then referred to the restrictive covenant
7 issue and asked that they find a path forward to get the beaches open. Mr. Blum concluded most of the
8 standards have not been met and asked the Village Attorney to draft language which outlined the
9 Commission’s opposition.
10
11 Mr. Poor stated he came to the similar conclusion as the rest of the Commission Members and described
12 his use of the dog beach. He stated a 15-foot fence in the lake would present security issues for dogs who
13 love the water. Mr. Poor stated the dog beach existed prior to 2010 and worked well. He described the
14 risks and safety issues a 15-foot fence presented and the request did not satisfy the first two standards
15 and he would vote against the request. Mr. Bradley stated there may be a call for everyone to work
16 towards a temporary condition and viable path which would bide some time in connection with the issues
17 between the prior plan and future plans for Centennial and Elder Beaches. He stated a strict standard
18 interpretation of the standards would put a zero sum solution on the table. Mr. Bradley stated the beaches
19 cannot be left alone and littoral drift among other issues needed to be addressed. He concluded by stating
20 a short term solution needed to be reached while a longer term plan can be achieved. The Commission
21 Members agreed a solution is needed.
22
23 Trustee Orsic informed the Commission dog beach pass owners came to a Village Council meeting and
24 stated they are not in favor of fences or wedded to this location. She stated while there has not been a
25 fence there for a period of time, she referred to the dangers of having children and dogs play in the water
26 with a submerged fence. Trustee Orsic referred to the wood slat temporary fence at Highland Park and
27 agreed a solution needed to be reached for Elder Beach to be opened. Chairperson Danley agreed with
28 Mr. Bradley’s comments and reiterated her statement at the time the entire plan was presented to the
29 Commission is that in making a decision, they all want the beaches to be open. She stated she is concerned
30 with the first two standards and referred to the safety concerns raised with regard to children and dogs.
31 Chairperson Danley stated having a fence in the water would not serve to address the safety concerns.
32 She also referred to the difficulty if they were to impose conditions which would be numerous as well as
33 the interaction between those beach goers and dog owners with a solution being made that took that
34 into account with the posted sign being insufficient. Chairperson Danley concluded she is not in favor of
35 the request.
36
37 Mr. Francke asked if the Park District could present a plan that eliminated the fencing in the water and
38 provided for a by-pass for public access around the dog beach at a future Plan Commission meeting. The
39 Commission was not receptive to an amended plan being presented to them after all the public comments
40 related to the submitted plan. Chairperson Danley suggested the applicant can present those options to
41 the ZBA. She then asked for a motion.
42
43 Mr. Blum moved to recommend denial of the special use request permit and to direct the Village Attorney
44 and Village staff to prepare written findings and determinations consistent with the Commission’s
45 comments and the record from this public hearing for proposed consideration at the Commission’s next
46 meeting. Ms. Case seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
47 AYES: Alt, Blum, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Van Vlack
48 NAYS: None
Page 80 of 157
January 28, 2026 Page 8
1 NON-VOTING: Bradley, Orsic
2
3 ***
4
5 Respectfully submitted,
6
7 Antionette Johnson
8 Recording Secretary
Page 81 of 157
ATTACHMENT C1
Page 82 of 157
Page 83 of 157
Page 84 of 157
Page 85 of 157
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Cc:
Subject: WPD Fencing SUP Application—Comments for ZBA
Date: Friday, February 6, 2026 9:54:52 AM
Attachments: 79D77E9B-AC52-4CC5-AC9C-CBC0E793E569.png
72EF620F-8882-4826-AD60-142297EB47FF.png
6596EEA3-476F-4B03-BB96-772A53BF06ED.png
4BC6BF5B-798F-455D-A353-CE0AB1157213.png
57171C5D-38A9-4395-853A-65804F652783.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Ann:
Would you please share this with ZBA ahead of its February 9, 2026 meeting?
On February 5, 2026 the Winnetka Park District adopted a motion approving new permanent
fencing designs for Centennial Beach. I did not see the new plans in ZBA’s publicly available
February 9, 2026 meeting packet. The new permanent fencing project differs in design, scope
and description from what WPD presented to ZBA for Monday’s meeting, which I believe
requires it to make new permit submissions to the Village.
WPD’s new permanent fencing designs
“The public beach has to end.”
Page 86 of 157
WPD continues to misrepresent the reasons for a fencing project that Cook County’s Deputy
Administrator categorizes as falling outside the scope of its ordinance. Further
misrepresentations and confusion related to WPD’s new dog beach fencing designs are as
follows.
1. Despite WPD’s awareness of the Village’s commitment to protecting the public’s health,
Page 87 of 157
safety and welfare, it adopted new designs that are at least as detrimental as the designs Plan
voted 7-0 not to recommend. This fencing would induce people to step onto the steel sheet
piling and use it to travel east as far as WPD’s proposed fencing extends, from where they
could jump off—potentially hitting 205 Sheridan’s armored stone breakwater. People will be
hard to see in the water/on the rocks/below the fencing, and difficult to rescue.
Two men climbed onto the steel groin and sidestepped along it by using the fencing. Note that
WPD’s designs would permanently induce future beachwalkers to do the same while
traversing Lake Michigan’s actual shoreline.
2. I understood WPD’s Costa Kutulas to say sand levels on either side of the new designs’
steel groin-mounted fencing would differ by approximately 4’, creating a hazardous drop off.
He also made an assumption that people would choose the safest route to reach 205 Sheridan’s
northern breakwater steps. I do not think it is reasonable to make this assumption, and I hope
ZBA asks him about it.
3. At the February 5, 2026 meeting, WPD’s board majority was coy about its intentions for
2024’s WPD-IFF Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant. The board majority said
they want to get all the permits for the groin-mounted fencing plan, and then revisit the
Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant. It does not take much to suspect an eventual
plan to encumber the park, freeze its use, build dangerous structures and impede access to
Centennial’s southern shoreline, all to the detriment of the public’s general welfare for over
half a century.
Page 88 of 157
4. WPD’s new permanent fencing designs would cost $50,000-$100,000–adding to over $2.3
million spent to date, plus a foregone genuine $3 million donation offer that would have
advanced more funds to cover litigation threats WPD is using as an excuse. The effect is
detrimental to the public’s general welfare.
Page 89 of 157
5. WPD’s new designs would involve relocating electrical wiring all the way down the bluffs
and onto the sandy beach 12 feet east of the toe of the bluffs. The OHWM on Centennial’s
southern end—closest to 205 Sheridan—is only a short distance east of the fencing and
electric fob.
Page 90 of 157
As water levels change, the electrical wiring, key fob, gate and even the “watertight” dog
waste receptacle will be fully or partly underwater. This will be unsafe, unsanitary and
difficult to maintain. I therefore request that ZBA ask WPD why in the surveys of dog beaches
throughout Lake and Cook Counties, nothing has surfaced depicting other dog beaches with
locked electric gates only feet away from the OHWM. It is obviously much safer and more
usable for the key fob operated gate to remain at the top of the bluffs with no risk of it being
submerged in Lake Michigan.
Page 91 of 157
Page 92 of 157
Metal cover over Centennial’s current electric fob operated gate’s emergency exit button was
broken off and not fixed over multiple summers.
6. I think it may be difficult for an electric gate that is sitting in sand or water to swing open. If
it does open, it may take more than a reasonable amount of time. Once inside the 10’ square
Page 93 of 157
enclosure leading to the main area for dogs, there would be another gate people would have to
unlatch and physically pull open (or closed) manually to enter or leave the 10’ square
enclosure. It is unclear if the designs include an emergency exit button inside the 10’ square
enclosure.
7. On February 5, 2026 Mr. Kutulas said the new designs’ black chainlink fencing would be
HARDER TO SEE. This will cause more accidents involving swimmers, paddle boarders,
kayakers, jet skiers and other watergoers along with dogs, getting tangled up with the fencing
and hurt, and/or possibly drowning.
8. WPD is loath to respect the Ordinary High Water Mark as the easternmost boundary of its
lot line for zoning purposes. Approving fencing that extends into a public street—Lake
Michigan—would set a terrible and dangerous precedent. You may not be aware of this, but a
threatening sign was placed off of the Cherry Street Beach sometime after 2023. In the fall of
2025 the sign was still on public beach below the OHWM. I believe it would create even more
dangers for the public if ZBA votes to recommend fencing below the OHWM. Others will use
this as precedent in their determined efforts to block off Lake Michigan.
Page 94 of 157
Sign south of Cherry Street Beach in 2025
9. WPD has not formed a plan for the isolated northern half of Centennial beach that its
designs would create. ZBA does not have enough information to assess whether an
immediately adjacent swimming beach would be safe for people and dogs traveling up and
down the stairs to the same watershed, whether it would be legal under the Illinois Swimming
Page 95 of 157
Facilities Act, whether WPD would comply with the law and build bathrooms within 300 feet
of the shoreline, or other potential issues. I am confounded by WPD’s consideration of designs
that could put human swimmers strictly on the north side of Centennial’s center steel groin
where they will face what WPD describes as northeasterly rip currents. It would be safer to put
people on the southern side of the steel groin . . . obviously not WPD’s choice since it would
foil efforts to fence Centennial’s southern boundary.
10. On February 5, 2026 WPD mentioned its allocation of funding to police Centennial beach
with “wardens.” WPD’s Centennial beach vision appears to be putting people and their dogs
in a cage, with roaming police issuing tickets and/or warning people away. This is out of line
with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, it is repugnant.
11. WPD seems confused about Wilmette’s Gillson Dog Beach. Dogs have to remain leashed
until they get to Gillson’s sandy dog beach, but not when they are on the sand.
12. It is unclear if Centennial’s 11 parking spots would be sufficient if Winnetka’s only dog
beach is next to a passive use or swimming beach. I think a dual-use beach will draw a lot of
people, like Lloyd Beach does. The lack of adequate parking will spill onto tabletop parkland,
into the neighborhood across Sheridan Road and around the area. This in itself is sufficient
reason to deny approving WPD’s SUP application.
13. Pounding fencing onto the steel groin that crosses over Centennial’s lot line with 205
Sheridan could be destabilizing and potentially give rise to damages. WPD should be asked
about this.
14. WPD makes no commitment to get a professional assessment of whether its designs—
particularly the gates—meet ADA requirements for Winnetka’s only dog beach, which is a
public accommodation.
WPD’s February 5, 2026 Special Meeting just appeared on its calendar on Monday, February
2, 2026. Its meeting agenda with two small images of the new permanent fencing designs
appeared on Tuesday, February 4, 2026. The public had 48 hours to evaluate the designs, if
they happened to read WPD’s agenda ahead of Thursday’s meeting. This is the same and also
inadequate timeframe that the public and non-majority board members had to try to evaluate
designs attached to WPD-IFF’s Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant when they
appeared in WPD’s October 19, 2023 meeting agenda—48 hours. Furthermore, the new
designs are not included in ZBA’s meeting packet. The Village Engineer, Police Chief and
Fire Chief have not had an opportunity to assess the designs’ narrow bypass width, the gates,
placing electrical on the beach, the 4’ drop-off, and other questions. WPD’s efforts to force
down cumbersome designs that impede access to public lands and threaten the public’s
general welfare—physically, financially and legally, are concerning. Please uphold the
public’s interest and decline to recommend approving them.
Thank you.
Kristine Schriesheim
Winnetka taxpayer
Page 96 of 157
The Zoning Board of Appeals shouldn’t do anything to advance the current plans
of the Winnetka Park District for a dog area at Centennial Beach, because setting
aside any lakefront property of the Village of Winnetka is simply an ill-conceived
use of Village and Park District lakefront.
There are better ways to handle this issue.
What the Village and the WPD should do in regard to canine access to the
lakefront is to [i] entirely prohibit dogs from all lakefront property during regular
swimming hours, but [ii] allow dog-owners and their dogs and the public to freely
use the lakefront – just the beach, not any park areas – in the evenings, after
regular hours for permitted swimming and for the public in general.
I have personally seen this regulatory scheme in action at beaches on the Atlantic
Ocean in New Jersey, and it has worked well for years.
And according to remarks by Zoning Board Chair Matthew Bradley at the January
28th Plan Commission meeting, the usage regime suggested above appears to be
how ‘the dog beach” has, in fact historically operated in Winnetka anyway.
Fully realizing this proposal and beach accessibility to Winnetka residents would,
of course, mean opening up all the lakefront that is now effectively barricaded by
the kind of massive rock jetties that have recently been erected at either end of
the Ishbia property, but even if it isn’t possible to address that particular aspect
right now, the regulatory scheme suggested above will still work well.
The proposed regulatory scheme will, obviously cost a great deal less than the
current Park District proposal, and it won’t involve further environmental
degradation -- assuming that dog-owners pick up after the pets.
It’s at least worth a try, isn’t it? So why not turn off the seemingly endless
governmental process for now, and give it a try for a year or two?
Marc Hecht
Page 97 of 157
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Subject: February 9, 2026
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2026 5:46:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Ann,
Please forward my letter below to the Zoning Board and the Design Review Board.
Thank You,
Joanna Karatzas
February 9, 2026
Re: Special Use Permit for Dog Fence at Centennial Beach
Zoning Board:
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
It’s hard writing about a moving target. Since the Park Board altered schematics for the dog
beach on February 5, 2026, the letter I previously wrote regarding the scheme presented to the
Planning Commission on January 28, 2026 is irrelevant. However, I don’t know if procedure
allows for a switch at this point without first going back to the Planning Commission.
Therefore, I’m retaining my response to that first scheme in this letter.
See Below.
Response to the Dog Beach plan presented
by Winnetka Park District to the public on February 5, 2026.
As I stated previously regarding the scheme presented to the Planning Commission on January
28, 2026, tonight’s plans are again vague, and therefore misleading. Because the drawing
doesn’t include the breakwater at 205 Sheridan, it may give the viewer an overly optimistic
perception of its true feasibility. It’s important to convey the entire existing condition on the
south boundary of Centennial. It’s a point of contention and I’ll never understand why the
drawing is incomplete.
In looking at the plan, it looks like pedestrians would have to walk on property belonging to
205 Sheridan when transversing southward along the lake. Also, the width of the passage in
front of the stairs over the breakwater seems especially narrow and is endanger of being
swamped should the lake rise to the high water mark.
A park commissioner at last week’s meeting mentioned the need for a staked survey at this
edge. It seems like a good idea and should have happened before this plan was presented.
More importantly, it’s worth asking ourselves what’s driving a fenced dog beach there at all?
The answer lies in a donation held out to the Park District by the Ishbia Family Foundation
(IFF), also known as the owner of 205 Sheridan. The donation isn’t a pure act of kindness, it
has strings attached. It mandates a fenced dog beach located at the south end of Centennial;
ADA access; and a very over-scaled pier placed near where the north dog beach fence is
Page 98 of 157
proposed. I wish someone would tell me what IFF’s motivations are, particularly regarding the
pier.
The entanglement between IFF and the WPD has resulted in some very weird proposals and
solutions over the last four years. I have been critical of the proposed designs, but I know the
designers aren’t at fault. The root of the problems lie with decisions and agreements the
Winnetka Park Board has made. Cutting the cord between IFF and WPD would allow for a
rational solution at Elder/Centennial.
Response to the Dog Beach plan presented
by Winnetka Park District to the Planning Commission on January 28, 2026.
The plans for the off-leash dog beach, submitted as part of tonight’s agenda packet are vague
and therefore misleading. The drawings fail to inform the Zoning Board and the public of the
breakwater now existing at the north boundary of 205 Sheridan, also known as the south
boundary of Centennial, nor do they highlight the existing sheet pile at the same location.
Furthermore, the fence elevations are not presented in context— therefore the observer can’t
see what lurks behind proposed south fence. Had the sheet pile and the breakwater been boldly
drawn in plan, the benign looking 20 ft.-gap between the thin line representing the south fence
of the proposed dog beach and the property line of 205 Sheridan Rd. would seem hazardous
and redundant.
The proposed fence is 93 ft. 3in. long from the toe of the bluff to its eastern terminus in Lake
Michigan. It runs into the lake at a proposed distance of 15 ft. from the ordinary water line, but
that stretch would increase to 40 plus ft. should the lake rise to the high water mark. Should
the lake level stay at the ordinary water mark, the water depth at the east terminus of the fence
would be 1.5-2 ft. That makes me wonder, would that depth be if we experience a high tide?
At best, the proposed 20 ft. gap will be an unsightly debris collector and at worst it would be a
trap endangering the lives of people and dogs that might get stuck and battered between
jagged rocks, a corroded sheet pile, and an ungiving fence. Yes, the lake can get choppy and
produce strong currents.
The need to provide a fence where there is already a pile of rocks is questionable. Dogs aren’t
likely to pick their way over wet, slimy rocks in favor of running and playing on a wide open
beach.
Finally, drawings are a powerful tool of communication. They should be comprehensive and
describe adjacency conditions. In this case they fail to do so, therefore, please deny this
Special Use Permit.
Joanna Karatzas
Winnetka Resident
Sent from my iPhone
Page 99 of 157
John William Root
326 Woodland Avenue
Winnetka, IL 60093
Telephone:
Email:
Sent by electronic mail: smangum@winnetka.org
Mr. Scott Mangum February 8, 2026
Village of Winnetka
Director of Community Development
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Re: Case No. 25-28-SU
225 Sheridan Road – Centennial Park & Beach
Comments for 10/14/24 Hearing
Dear Mr. Mangum:
As you may be aware, the Winnetka Park Board (WPD) met on February 5, 2026, and approved
a new design for the dog fence for its Special Use Permit (SUP) for Case No. 25-28-SU. The
design can be seen below in figure 1.
Figure 1. Revised Dog Fence Design
Page 100 of 157
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
February 8, 2026
Page 2 of 3
The February 5 redesign appears to be a material change from the fence configuration presented
in the pending SUP application and circulated to the public. Among other things, the redesign
relocates the fence elements and reconfigures Centennial Beach by dividing it into an off-leash
dog area and a separate “passive” beach area for the general public, which materially alters the
character and impacts of the proposed special use.
Section 17.56.130 (Amendments to Special Use Permits) recognizes that when a SUP holder
seeks a material change to the approved special use, the change must be processed as an
amendment with the required administrative review and public process. The Park District is not
merely refining details; it has approved a substantively different configuration. At minimum, the
Village should require the Park District to proceed through the appropriate administrative
procedure under the Zoning Ordinance for a material modification—i.e., staff review, a complete
and current plan set, and legally adequate public notice—before the matter is heard on the merits.
This is also a basic procedural due process issue. The public hearing process only works if
residents and affected property owners have meaningful notice of what is being proposed and a
fair opportunity to review and comment on the operative design. A last-minute substitution of a
materially different fence plan on the eve of a hearing undermines the integrity of the
administrative record and deprives interested persons of a fair opportunity to be heard on the
actual proposal.
As of the date of this letter: (1) no notice of postponement of the February 9, 2026, ZBA hearing
appears to have been posted; and (2) the February 5 revised fence design does not appear to be
posted on the Village’s ZBA webpage. It therefore appears likely that the Park District may
present the superseded fence design at the February 9 hearing, despite having approved a
materially different plan on February 5. That would be inefficient for the ZBA and unfair to the
public, and it risks a recommendation based on a plan the applicant itself has abandoned.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Village require the Park District to submit a complete
amended plan set reflecting the new February 5 design and then restart or continue the SUP
process as required for material changes, including staff review and proper notice to surrounding
property owners and the public. If the Park District nonetheless intends to proceed on February
9 using the older design, then the ZBA should limit the presentation time (e.g., 15 minutes for
staff and 15 minutes for the applicant) and avoid devoting substantial hearing time to an
outmoded plan that is no longer the applicant’s approved design.
Thank you for your attention to this issue.
Sincerely,
/ s/
John W. Root
Page 101 of 157
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
February 8, 2026
Page 3 of 3
cc: Members of the Village of Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
Ms. Kristin Kazenas, Village Manager
By Email: KKazenas@winnetka.org
Ms. Ann Klaassen
Assistant Director
By Email: AKlaassen@winnetka.org
Page 102 of 157
To: Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Angie Dahl
Re: Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road-Centennial Beach
Date: February 9 2026
Members of the ZBA:
You are being asked tonight to consider and approve an application from the Winnetka Park
District to allow installation of fencing on the existing Centennial beach in order to create a
dog beach. On January 28 2026, this application was unanimously rejected by the Plan
Commission.
Tonight, Park District staff and legal counsel may also present an alternative plan, differing in
size, scope and accessibility, which was adopted at a Special Meeting of the Park Board held
on February 5, 2026 at 4:30 in the afternoon.
The plan rejected by the Plan Commission, which is before you this evening, and the newly
designed plan adopted by the Winnetka Park Board on February 5 have one purpose in
common: the creation of a dog beach with substantial fencing.
Several years ago the Winnetka Park District solicited input from dog owners and dog beach
users on an ad hoc advisory board whose purpose was to evaluate options within the
community for an off leash dog area. The recommendation from that group was to move the
dog beach from Centennial and relocate it at an area near the power plant at Tower Road.
The timing of this ad hoc committee and its subsequent recommendation overlapped with
new, private and ongoing discussions between several members of the Winnetka Park District
Board of Commissioners, and an individual property owner purchasing land adjacent to
Centennial Park. During this same period, concerned residents attempted but failed to locate
or review any meeting minutes or video recordings of meetings where the Centennial/Elder
project was discussed. This resulted in an inquiry to the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and
a subsequent finding that the Winnetka Park District was in violation of the requirements in
the Open Meetings Act of timely posting meeting minutes and videos for public review.
Interestingly, the missing information being sought directly related to the negotiations taking
place in private with a specific home owner. The findings of the ad hoc dog beach advisory
committee were put aside.
I bring this to your attention tonight because of the repetitive nature of the SUP applications
from the Park District.
I am a dog owner, a user of the dog beach, and was a Park District Commissioner at the time
the Centennial Dog Beach was conceived and implemented. My husband was a member of
Page 103 of 157
the ad hoc Dog Beach Committee which addressed a possible change in location. I believe
there is a simple solution to this ongoing merry-go-round of hearings regarding this issue.
Remove the dog beach from Centennial. If that happens, there will be no need for a SUP and
no need for the fencing that is opposed by so many.
I don’t know if it is within your purview to make this decision. If so, please consider this
option and please deny the Winnetka Park District’s application for a SUP.
Angie Dahl
1277 Forest Glen Dr N
Page 104 of 157
MEM0
February 9, 2026
TO: Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Laurie Morse
RE: Centennial Fence Designs 1-3. Which will the ZB review today?
Zoning Board reviewed and rejected fence design 1. at meetings in 2024. This fence blocks
public access stairs to the new 205 beach, which is now complete and open for public use.
1. Fence plan from WPD/IFF restrictive Covenant Agreement dated January 19, 2024:
access stairs to 205 Sheridan beach 1
Page 105 of 157
2. WPD Fence Plan chosen at WPD Board Meeting February 5, 2026
The Feb. 5 WPD Board Meeting was theater. This “new” fence design conforms nicely to
Ishbia Family Covenant agreement requirements. Walkways and other features can be
added later. This plan includes locked gates at beach level but is not materially di erent
from 1. above already rejected by ZB. Access stairs to new public 205 beach blocked.
The “temporary fence” 3. Below, scheduled for ZB review today doesn’t conform to the
Ishbia Covenant agreement fence plan. “Temporary” language in IDNR permit application
was meant for Ishbia Family team. “Temporary fence” was e ective test of IDNR permit
review. WPD no longer plans to build this design and will seek new permits from all
regulators.
3. IDNR permitted this fence design on December 24, 2025. Permit LM20250015.
Page 106 of 157
From: Ann Klaassen
To: Ann Klaassen
Subject: Could you distribute to ZBA?
Date: Monday, February 9, 2026 11:55:14 AM
From: Irene Smith >
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 10:52 AM
To: Ann Klaassen <AKlaassen@winnetka.org>
Subject: Could you distribute to ZBA?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning, Ann. Is it too late to add something to the ZBA packets? This is a poster I’m bringing tonight, but I’m afraid
the printing is too small. It would be better understood if the Commissioners could read it in their packets.
Many thanks.
Irene
Page 107 of 157
*****************************
Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly
Page 108 of 157
believe. In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more
excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring.
When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid
down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression, and war. So I say to
you, walk with the wind, brothers and sisters, and let the spirit of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide.
John Lewis, from the essay he wrote shortly before his death on July 17, 2020.
Page 109 of 157
Page 110 of 157
Page 111 of 157
From:
To: Robert Dearborn; Kristin Kazenas
Cc: Ann Klaassen; Brian O"Connell
Subject: Can we resolve question re beach below 205 Sheridan prior to March ZBA meeting?
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 12:16:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear President Dearborn and Manager Kazenas,
Winnetka's Zoning Board of Appeals will review yet another Park District
fencing design for Centennial Beach at its March meeting. The south end
of new proposal fences off the stone steps the IDNR and the Village
required for public access over the rock breakwater to the new public
engineered beach below 205 Sheridan Sheridan Road. Am drafting comments
on the fences for the ZBA and realize it is essential the Village
establish for ZBA Commissioners the public nature of the new beach below
205 Sheridan. That the new beach is a public asset in Winnetka.
I could write a long spiel for the ZBA, but it takes the Village to
settle for its own commissioners any question of the public's rights to
use the new beach. The terms of the State permit allowing the 205 beach
construction are clear: All the fill is public and open for use to all.
The permit award letter to the 205 owner from the IDNR specifies the
rock steps from Centennial over the 205 rock breakwater need to be far
enough up the beach to provide safe access for all. The Village in its
own permits also required stairs over the 205 structure's rocks so the
public can safely cross to the new beach. Further, the IDNR underscored
the public nature of the beach by requiring stairs down south side of
new 205 groin so the public can proceed south if they wish. All of
these documents are in your files.
In November, 2025, after the 205 beach construction fence was removed, a
friend and I enjoyed our first visit to the new beach, using the rock
stairs from Centennial for access. Due to a misunderstanding by the
upland owner, the police were called. Your public safety team resolved
the misunderstanding and recognized the rights of my friend and I to
stay and enjoy the new beach as long as we liked. I and others have
subsequently visited the beach below 205 frequently and look forward to
further visits during warm weather.
This E-mail is only a request that the Village confirm for Zoning Board
members the public nature of the new beach on Centennial's southern
border. I am not asking for a public declaration or announcement. Only
that members of the ZBA are fully informed prior to their hearing on
Park District fencing. They deserve clarity before considering the WPD
application for permission to fence off public access to the new public
beach below 205.
Am copying Ann Klaassen with a request to share this note with Chairman
Bradley of ZBA. Am copying Chief O'Connell for information only.
Best regards,
Page 112 of 157
Laurie Morse
Page 113 of 157
Page 114 of 157
Wildlife-friendly Fencing and the
Problem With Link Chain Fencing
May 9, 2024 - By tara
In recent years, the conversation around sustainable living and
environmental conservation has highlighted the importance of wildlife-
friendly fencing. Traditional barriers, particularly chain link fences, often
pose significant hazards to local wildlife, obstructing natural movements
and causing injuries. This article explores some wildlife-friendly fence
options, the challenges of chain links, and inexpensive ways to cover a
chain link fence to enhance its safety for wildlife.
What Makes a Fence Wildlife-Friendly?
Visibility
Wildlife-friendly fencing is designed to be highly visible to animals to
prevent collisions and entanglement. By using larger, more reflective
materials or adding colorful flagging tape to wires, the fence stands out
better in natural environments. This visibility helps animals like deer, elk,
and even birds recognize the barrier from a distance, allowing them to
navigate safely around it. Enhanced visibility is especially crucial in areas
where animal movement is high, ensuring that the fence serves as a gentle
deterrent rather than a lethal obstacle.
Permeability
The concept of permeability in fencing is crucial for maintaining natural
wildlife migration and movement patterns. Wildlife-friendly fences are
constructed with gaps or are flexible enough to allow animals to pass
through safely when necessary. For instance, drop-down sections or large
spaces between the lower wires enable smaller animals to crawl under,
while taller species might jump over without harm. This approach helps in
Page 115 of 157
preserving the ecological balance and allows animals to continue their
natural behaviors such as foraging and migration without severe
disruption.
Height and Spacing
Adjusting the height and spacing of the wires in a fence can significantly
enhance its wildlife-friendliness. The design considerations include
ensuring that fences are not too high that they trap animals or too low that
they pose a tripping hazard. Ideally, a fence should be high enough to deter
or contain livestock yet low enough or properly spaced so that wildlife like
deer can jump over safely. Moreover, sufficient ground clearance is
provided to allow smaller creatures, such as turtles and rodents, to pass
underneath, facilitating free movement across their habitat.
Material
The choice of material in wildlife-friendly fencing is vital to minimize
potential injuries to wildlife. Using smoother and more flexible materials
can reduce the chances of animals getting caught or injured by the fence.
Smooth wire is often preferred over barbed wire, as it is less likely to cause
harm if an animal attempts to cross through or over the fence. This
consideration not only protects wildlife but also maintains the integrity and
purpose of the fence over time.
Gate Placement and Design
Integrating strategically placed gates or removable sections in wildlife-
friendly fencing can significantly improve accessibility for wildlife. These
gates are often designed to accommodate seasonal migration patterns,
allowing animals to pass through key areas during specific times of the
year. This design strategy helps to ensure that fencing does not
permanently fragment habitats or obstruct essential migratory routes, thus
supporting biodiversity and ecological connectivity.
Page 116 of 157
Page 117 of 157
Chain link fencing is not typically recommended for wildlife-friendly fencing
due to several potential issues it can pose for animals:
Limited Permeability: Chain link fences offer little to no flexibility for
animals to pass through or over, effectively creating barriers that can
restrict wildlife movement and fragment habitats.
Injury Risks: The mesh design of chain link fences can pose risks for smaller
wildlife, which might attempt to pass through the openings and become
stuck or injured.
Obstacle to Larger Animals: Larger wildlife, like deer or elk, cannot jump
over high chain link fences without risking injury. Likewise, they can’t pass
through it, which can disrupt natural migration and foraging paths.
Cheap Ways to Cover a Chain Link Fence
If you already have a chain link fence and want to make it more wildlife-
friendly, there are a few modifications you can consider to reduce its impact
on local fauna:
There are some affordable ways to cover a chain link fence to create
a wildlife-friendly space in your garden.
Adding visual markers such as colorful ribbons or reflective materials
increases visibility to animals, helping to prevent collisions.
Implementing affordable covers like finer mesh or burlap can protect
smaller creatures from getting trapped while also concealing the
industrial look of the fence.
Strategically creating gaps or installing wildlife-friendly gates facilitates
natural animal movement.
Planting vegetation, such as climbing vines near the fence, provides a
green cover, seamlessly integrating the fence with its natural
surroundings.
Page 118 of 157
These cost-effective modifications not only ensure the safety of local wildlife
but also improve the overall appearance of the fence.
Thank you for your consideration.
Irene Smith
1087 Elm St.
Page 119 of 157
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Subject: A photo for the ZBA packet.
Date: Saturday, February 28, 2026 2:47:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi, Ann. Would you please copy the following for the ZBA packets? Thanks so
much.
Irene
Page 120 of 157
To the ZBA members-
This is a photo of the beach at Old Lyme, CT. I cannot imagine 2 such cages on
Centennial Beach, one for people with dogs and one for people without dogs.
Executive Director of Parks, Shannon Nazzal, says the fences they are proposing will
be permanent. Again, you are getting a piecemeal proposal. How can you approve
such a thing without seeing the plans for Elder / Centennial?
Please deny the request by the Park District for an SUP.
Thank you for your consideration.
Irene Smith
1087 Elm Street
Page 121 of 157
From:
To: ; Ann Klaassen
Subject: March 9 ZBA Meeting
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 11:23:39 AM
Attachments: F1C79686-0224-415B-9367-EA360D628FF9.png
399185DD-6164-4D62-9319-383230965428.png
A6D6EBD7-8147-47BD-950C-09E86B4131C4.png
DFC6549F-CF1B-47F2-9247-A78EBF9C1927.png
CentennialFlyoverVideo.MP4
Alex Ross Email Redacted.pdf
IL OSHA Employee SanitaryFacilities.pdf
WPD AECOM FailedSteelGroin Breakwater 2025.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Ann:
Would you please share my comments on WPD's revised Centennial fencing designs with
ZBA, along with the attachments?
Thank you.
Kris Schriesheim
Winnetka taxpayer
WPD’s description of Centennial as Winnetka’s largest and highest quality beach weighs
against recommending a dangerous fencing scheme that is detrimental to and would threaten
the public’s general welfare permanently.
DESIGNS BLOCK PASSAGE AND PRIVATIZE BEACH
Page 122 of 157
WPD’s seeks to obtain a permit for designs that would block passage along and privatize the
beach. This breaches multiple Village Code sections; threatens the public's health, safety and
welfare; threatens the essential character of Winnetka's Sheridan Road neighborhoods;
diminishes property values with fencing that does not exist elsewhere in the neighborhood;
creates congestion in the street; uses non-minimal designs; and creates parking issues. Most of
these SUP issues were raised during ZBA's 2024 review, yet WPD appears to have made no
effort to resolve them during the ensuing 14 months.
Driving WPD's fencing efforts are inflexible, unsafe, unaffordable, unpopular, twice-rejected
breakwater-heavy designs. WPD's current SUP application mirrors almost exactly WPD's
fencing designs from its 2024 Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant for which it
unsuccessfully sought ZBA's approval.
I. WPD's fencing designs Violate SUP Condition 1, which requires: "That the establishment,
maintenance and operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare."
Page 123 of 157
The impetus for WPD's beach designs was purportedly to address periodic high lake levels
and (undocumented) erosion. This appears to have fallen by the wayside.
At WPD's February 5, 2026 board meeting, staff said that although current lake levels are
low, the electric gate and fencing's placement on the sandy beach would eventually be in or
under the waters of Lake Michigan. WPD's rush to permitting for dangerous fencing that
would threaten the public's general welfare permanently, while disregarding the potential
impact of Lake Michigan's high water levels, is sufficient reason for ZBA to decline
recommending WPD's SUP application.
Page 124 of 157
In the very recent past WPD also said ADA concerns were a reason for "developing"
Centennial Park and Beach. It appears to have forgotten all about this with permanent fencing
designs that neither contemplate nor incorporate any ADA elements. A complete absence of
ADA-compliance efforts is sufficient reason for ZBA to decline recommending WPD's SUP
application for permanent fencing.
According to staff, WPD's southern fencing's placement would only provide a 4 foot wide
passage area—effectively privatizing the southern neighbor's beach, while making it
extremely difficult for WPD maintenance crews to reach debris, dead animals/fish, and other
things that may be trapped against the fencing.
Attaching chain-link fencing to two mid-century steel groins extending over 100 feet into
Lake Michigan is neither advisable nor safe. Last year AECOM did inform WPD of
Page 125 of 157
Centennial's southern steel groin’s lack of maintenance. Despite possessing this information,
WPD failed to inform Plan in May 2025 that it was proposing to build permanent fencing on
an unsafe groin. Today's plans would see the fencing's partial removal and then re-pounding it
into both steel groins twice a year. This is concerning.
AECOM's 2025 letter says Lake Michigan wave action damaged 205 Sheridan's northern
breakwater before construction was even complete. WPD's half-century obligation to maintain
the Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant's Project Elements, groin-mounted fencing
included, could result in extremely expensive, ongoing repairs to its own and neighboring
properties. Centennial's proposed structures may sustain wave damage constantly, which
would inflict major costs with resultant harm to the public.
The search for online information on open water chain-link fencing was challenging. A
professional engineering forum discussed the perils of gated fencing in dynamic water
conditions; considerations include entrapment; fencing designed to float away when water
levels reach 3 inches so people are not trapped within the enclosure; that once released, the
fencing could incidentally damage other property; and other potential legal issues.
Page 126 of 157
Leaving a chain-link fence on steel groins in Lake Michigan year-round would create similar
safety and liability issues, injure wildlife, alter habitat, and create damaging ice pressure
points.
Page 127 of 157
One other point to consider is that fencing in or near water--including pools—typically has
gates that are designed to open away from the water, which minimizes the risks of children
pushing them open from the outside to get in. WPD's gates appear to be designed to open
towards the water. WPD's apparent lack of attention to safety protocols is sufficient reason to
deny recommending WPD's SUP application.
II. WPD's fencing designs violate SUP Condition 2, which requires: "That the special use not
be substantially injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
which are permitted by right in the district or districts of concern, nor substantially diminish or
impair property values in the immediate vicinity."
As discussed above, permanently attaching chain-link fencing to old steel groins may result in
damage to neighboring properties. Using electric beach-mounted gates and fencing that could
detach and damage neighboring areas violates SUP Condition 2. Neighbors have the right to
expect WPD to comply with Village design standards that are meant to protect property
values. There are no fenced park district beaches in Winnetka.
Page 128 of 157
III. WPD's fencing designs violate SUP Conditions 4 and 5, which require: "That adequate
measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress in a manner which
minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the public ways" and "That adequate
parking . . . and other facilities necessary to the operation of the special use exist or are to be
provided."
Because WPD merely replicated its non-recommended 2024 Centennial SUP designs, it has
not addressed concerns about ingress and egress along Sheridan Road. This alone is sufficient
to decline recommending WPD's SUP application.
WPD still suggesting cars park on Centennial’s tabletop, like Lloyd.
Page 129 of 157
WPD essentially replicated its non-recommended 2024 Centennial SUP designs converting
Centennial into a dual use beach, without defining resultant parking needs first or
neighborhood impact. This alone is sufficient to decline recommending WPD's SUP
application.
IV. WPD's replication of 2024's Centennial SUP designs lacking sanitary facilities that are
necessary to Centennial's operation violates SUP Condition 5. WPD plans to hire Centennial
staff who would have to reach Elder Beach to find bathroom facilities. Failing to provide
necessary facilities violates Village Code Section 15.08.080--International Property
Maintenance Code--#39, 503.3, which obligates Winnetka employers to provide access to
toilet facilities from within the employees' working area. The required toilet facilities must be
located so that the path of travel to such facilities does not exceed a distance of 300 feet from
the employees' regular working area. This alone is sufficient to deny recommending WPD's
SUP application.
V. WPD's fencing designs violate SUP Condition 6, which requires; "That the special use in
all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of this and other Village ordinances
and codes." With respect to the Public Trust Doctrine, the Village Attorney has already stated
WPD needs to address the fencing's placement by obtaining an access easement, moving the
fencing, or in some other lawful manner. Village Code Section 17.60.035 prevents placement
of WPD's fencing across the southern neighbor's lot line.
FURTHER CODE VIOLATIONS THAT PREVENT GRANTING A SUP
Village Code Section 9 forbids the creation of a public nuisance, which WPD’s chain-link
fencing would do.
Page 130 of 157
Then-Trustee Andy Cripe prepared a January 2023 memorandum for the Council’s lakefront
study session.The memorandum lays out how shoreline obstructions would create a public
nuisance. It is available on the Village website.
Village Code Section 12.04.040 forbids encroachment onto public streets, including Lake
Michigan. WPD's fencing would unlawfully encroach onto the public street.
This is my analysis of certain applicable Village Code sections that were entirely new to me.
Village Code Section 15.08.070--Amendment to National Electric Code 2020 Edition--states
that the Village's Water and Electrical Department must install all new and modified
underground electrical services. At WPD's February 26, 2026 meeting WPD staff gave the
impression that it would install the underground electrical services itself. Query whether
running electrical lines down to the lakefront would require steep slope and/or slope transition
zone work.
Village Code Section 15.08.130--Amendment to MWRD-WMO Section 602.9--This
Page 131 of 157
incorporated section says new structures that are substantial improvements 'shall (D) Elevate
electrical and other service facilities to the FPE or higher and (E) Provide a back-up power
source that will activate without human intervention if electricity is required.' Development
includes changes in land use and practices. ZBA should consider whether WPD is aware of or
intends to comply with this Code requirement given the complete absence of floodway
permitting consideration in the SUP application, the designs' placement of electrical below
FPE, and the lack of a backup power source.
Village Code Section 15.32.030--New structures in Flood Hazard Areas (which includes
Centennial's lakefront) cannot get a building permit until the applicant complies with Section
15.68 (Floodplain Construction provisions) and the Watershed Management Ordinance. I do
not believe WPD has made an effort to do so.
Village Code Section 15.32.080--Criteria for Permit Approval (C]-Zoning conformity. Any
property upon which the construction of any primary structure is to occur, shall be a single lot
of record, and (D)-No work may affect the Public Way and Property, and no permit shall be
issued unless the applicant first complies with Village Code Section 12 (this is violated by
encroaching upon a public street, see above). Assuming that the gate and fencing constitute
primary structures, WPD's permit designs fail to meet these Code requirements.
Village Code Section 15.68.060-Occupation and Use of Identified Floodways. All floodway
modifications shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose of the project.
WPD's fencing is far from the minimum necessary for a Cook County project.
Village Code Section 15.68.060: Consider whether WPD plans violate Subsections (1)—
Underground utilities are only permitted if they do not require the placement of above ground
structures in the floodway and (3)--Centennial beach is in a coastal high hazard area (Zone
VE), and no fences are allowed under a regional permit. This section also provides that WPD
would need to retain a professional engineer for its fencing project. Before the Village can
issue a permit, the IDNR/OWR first has to issue a permit or written documentation for a
Floodplain Development permit. Further, subsection (D) states that no development is allowed
in a floodway if it will be a threat to public health and safety. Building an electric gate that
will at times be in the water, as will chain-link fencing mounted to old, unstable, possibly
eroded steel groins above and in Lake Michigan's waters, with dog waste stored upon and
within a high coastal hazard zone, would pose multiple threats to the public's health and
safety.
Village Code Section 15.68.025 states that a Floodplain Development Permit Application
must use a specific form, which to the best to of my knowledge WPD has not complied with.
Village Code Section 15.68.080 contains permitting requirements applicable to all floodplain
areas, in addition to those contained in Sections 15.68.050. 15.68.060 and 15.68.070. Its (A)
public health standards state that no developments shall include locating animals' waste below
the FPE unless such materials are stored in a floodproofed and anchored storage tank and
certified by a professional engineer; (D) public utilities such as electric must be located and
constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damages (WPD's designs create/maximize the risk
of flood damages by adding an electric gate to the beach/waterfront instead of leaving it at the
top of the bluffs); and (E) all other developments, such as fences, shall be designed so as not to
. . . increase potential flood damage. Sheared off metal fencing would increase potential flood-
related damage, as would possible electric shocks from exposed wires if the gate breaks.
Page 132 of 157
Installation of electric and fencing that at times will be submerged maximizes, rather than
reduces, the dangers of flood damage. WPD plans to install “waterproof” containers for dog
waste on the beach itself, instead of leaving receptacles on the tabletop, seems unlikely to
meet Section 15.68.080’s requirements.
Village Code Section 15.68.100 - Variances- Former Trustee Andy Cripe's memorandum
discusses this section, which prohibits variances from being granted to any development
located in a regulatory floodway. WPD would have to apply to MWRD to obtain permission
for its unsafe project, which does not meet the section's requirements.
Village Code Section 15.78.010-Lakefront Construction
Section 15.78.080(C] says the construction must comply with all other applicable Village
Code provisions (WPD's project does not), (D) the project scope must be only what is
minimally necessary to achieve the intended and PROPER purpose (emphasis added) of the
project (extending fencing beyond a single lot, across a public street, violating the Public Trust
Doctrine and creating a private beach are not proper purposes); (E) fencing must not interfere
with Public Safety Operations (WPD's structures would block and unreasonably interfere with
the ability of public safety personnel to conduct search and rescue or other safety operations;
and (G) existing sightlines may not be altered more than minimally necessary (WPD's designs
would unreasonably alter sightlines by building permanent black chain link fencing on
Winnetka’s beautiful beaches, and also would violate WPD Policy Manual's presumptive
preference to avoid fencing and leave open spaces intact).
Village Code Section 17.04.020- Objectives-Every single one of the Village's Zoning Code
precepts is or would be violated by WPD's electric gate and chain-link fencing.
Village Code Section 17.04.030 (8) prohibits WPD's fencing from impermissibly and
Page 133 of 157
unlawfully extending across the OHWM/Street Line, into the open waters of Lake Michigan.
Village Code Section 17.04.030 (3) states that a zoning lot on Lake Michigan does not lie
beyond the Ordinary High Water Mark. The Village Code does not permit issuance for
fencing beyond a single lot. See also Section 17.60.035, discussed above.
Thank you for reading these comments, which I prepared after spending some time studying
the Village Code. Based upon my review, I respectfully request that ZBA decline to
recommend approving WPD's SUP application.
Page 134 of 157
Page 135 of 157
Page 136 of 157
Page 138 of 157
2024 Winnetka Caucus Council (WCC) -
Proposed Platforms
1
Page 139 of 157
Winnetka Park District Board Platform
Plank #1: Intergovernmental Cooperation - Elder Beach
The Winnetka Park District and Village of Winnetka continue to work through the application
process for the Centennial-Elder project. In the meantime, there is a clear desire for a temporary
solution that will enable the Elder beach to be opened. As can be seen below, more than 60% of
respondents are in favor of the temporary solution.
Yes 61.30% 955
No 19.58% 305
No Opinion 19.13% 298
Total 100% 1558
Skipped 65
While the issues surrounding the Centennial and Elder parks / beaches are complex, the
Village and the Parks Department should work together to prioritize a solution for beach
access and swimming at Elder Park in the near-term.
—-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The questions below are based on percentage information provided directly from the
survey software, which did not account for people who skipped answering the question. Of
those who skipped the questions we identified that there were 264 respondents who did not
answer any of the questions, so we do not consider these respondents valid for the questions.
3
Page 140 of 157
Plank #2: Donation Agreement
The Park District entered into a Donation Agreement with restrictive covenants with a private
party. The survey question asked if this should be renegotiated or go forward, with the results
below:
Continue with the donation, as negotiated. 29.33% 366
Renegotiate to eliminate restrictive covenants with the 49.20% 614
possibility that the WPD will have to seek alternative
funding (reserves, debt, etc.) if negotiations fail.
No Opinion 21.47% 268
Total 100% 1,248
Skipped 375
The results of the survey show that nearly 50% of all responders agree that the Park
District should reconsider the Donation Agreement. In addition, when excluding those
who responded with “No Opinion,” 63% of responders indicated that the Donation
Agreement should be renegotiated. The Park District should renegotiate the terms of the
Agreement to eliminate the restrictive covenants, or pursue alternative funding if
Necessary.
Plank #3: Organic Parks
In 2018 the Park District staff conducted a pilot program using an organic herbicide in one park.
More than 68% of survey respondents have expressed a desire for the Park District to launch
another pilot program.
Yes 68.26% 899
No 11.24% 148
No Opinion 20.50% 270
Total 100% 1317
Skipped 306
With a view toward examining the viability of making more parks organic, the Park
District should undertake a new pilot program utilizing any updated organic management
techniques and exploring the use of a consultant.
4
Page 141 of 157
Plank #4: WPD Top Areas of Interest (Q16)
The top three areas of interest WPD constituents would like to see addressed are a) an outdoor
pool, b) an improved Green Bay Trail (requiring coordination with the Village) and c) an indoor
pool. As can be seen in the results below, two other options were close to the top three:
Outdoor Pool 30.49% 397
Green Bay Trail 27.73% 361
Indoor Pool 22.50% 293
Non-Beach Off-Leash Dog Park 22.12% 288
Multi-Use Center (general use) 20.35% 265
Total 1302
Skipped 321
Taken together, interest in a pool option remains a top priority for constituents. Taking
direction from the unimplemented Plank #4 in 2022, the WPD should commission a
comprehensive study on the feasibility and economics of various pool options, including
partnerships with other towns and New Trier High School. This should be presented to
the community, including location preferences, cost to build, cost to maintain, and
revenue generation potential, and options to meet any potential shortfall.
5
Page 142 of 157
ChatGPT Log in Sign up for free
does the state of illinois require employers to provide its
employees with workplace restroom facilities
Yes — under Illinois law, employers (and building owners/operators) generally must provide
workplace restroom facilities for employees, but the requirements come mainly from state
administrative plumbing codes rather than a simple statute saying “provide a bathroom.”
Legal Inform…
Workplace Restroom Facilities Requirement (Illinois Administrative Code)
Under the Illinois Plumbing Code (Title 77, Part 890), there are specific requirements for employee
restroom facilities in places of employment:
Restroom facilities and drinking fountains must be provided for all employees at each place
of employment. Legal Information …
The minimum number of plumbing fixtures (toilets, lavatories, etc.) is determined based on the
maximum number of male and female employees working at any one time. Legal Information …
If more than five employees are present at any one time, separate restrooms for men and
women are required. If five or fewer, one restroom may serve all employees. Legal Information …
Access to these restrooms must meet certain location and access standards (e.g., on the same
floor or within a specified distance in some buildings). Illinoi…
This is a state-level standard that applies to employers and property owners in Illinois and is
typically enforced through building inspections and code enforcement agencies. It is not limited to
construction sites but applies broadly to places of employment covered by the plumbing code.
Legal Information …
Construction Sites (Specific Law)
There is also a Construction Site Temporary Restroom Facility Act in Illinois that specifically
requires adequate restroom facilities on construction sites for workers while the building is under
construction. Justia Law
Federal Requirements Also Apply
In addition to state plumbing codes, employers in Illinois are subject to federal Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) sanitation standards, which require employers to ensure
employees have access to sanitary restroom facilities and reasonable breaks to use them. OSHA’s
rules apply nationwide, including Illinois. While OSHA doesn’t set state-specific requirements, its
sanitation standards are enforceable in all states. (Federal OSHA rules are often adopted or enforced
through state OSHA programs; Illinois participates in OSHA enforcement.) Reddit
In short: Yes — Illinois regulations require employers to provide restroom facilities for their
employees according to minimum plumbing standards, and this is supported by state administrative
plumbing codes. Enforcement typically comes through building/plumbing inspections and compliance
with safety and health regulations. State law also complements federal OSHA requirements for
sanitary restroom access. Legal Information …
Sources
Page 143 of 157
:
can an employer legally require beach employees to swim across
the waters of lake michigan to reach bathroom facilities at a
different beach?
Short answer: No — that would almost certainly be illegal and a serious safety violation.
Requiring beach employees to swim across Lake Michigan to access restroom facilities would likely
violate multiple laws and safety standards.
OSHA Sanitation & Safety Rules
Under federal OSHA standards (enforced in Illinois), employers must:
Provide readily accessible toilet facilities
Ensure facilities are sanitary and safe to access
Not impose unreasonable restrictions on restroom use
Requiring employees to swim across open water to use a restroom would almost certainly violate
OSHA’s sanitation standards and general duty clause, which requires employers to provide a
workplace free from recognized hazards. Enforcement would fall under the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
Swimming across Lake Michigan presents obvious hazards:
Drowning risk
Strong currents and rip tides
Cold water exposure
Boat traffic
Severe weather changes
That would not be considered “reasonable access.”
Illinois Workplace Requirements
Illinois plumbing and workplace regulations require employers to provide adequate restroom facilities
for employees at places of employment. Forcing workers to travel off-site — especially by swimming
— would likely fail the requirement that facilities be accessible and adequate.
The Illinois Department of Labor could also treat this as an unsafe working condition.
Liability Exposure
Beyond regulatory violations, this would expose the employer to major liability:
Workers’ compensation claims
Personal injury lawsuits
Potential wrongful death liability
OSHA fines and penalties
If an employee were injured or drowned, the legal exposure would be severe.
Page 144 of 157
:
If an employee were injured or drowned, the legal exposure would be severe.
Bottom Line
An employer cannot legally require employees to swim across Lake Michigan to use a restroom.
Restroom facilities must be reasonably accessible and safe. This scenario would almost certainly
violate OSHA standards and create extreme legal liability.
If this is happening in real life, it’s something that should be reported immediately.
Page 145 of 157
:
AECOM 847-323-2171 tel
303 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1400
Chicago, IL 60601-5276
www.aecom.com
April 17, 2025
Mr. James P. Casey
Mr. Steve Altman
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Lake Michigan Section
160 N LaSalle Street, Suite 703
Chicago, IL 60601
Subject: Shoreline Protection Project in Lake Michigan (Permit LM 2023004)
205 Sheridan Road, Winnetka, Ill.
North Stone Groin Design Adjustment
Dear Jim and Steve,
This letter is with reference to a shoreline project that was approved by IDNR on May 2, 2023.
Winter storms have caused erosion at the east end of the North Stone Groin. The Winnetka Park District
steel groin, which is located immediately north of the stone groin, has experienced failure. The steel cap
on top of the steel groin has been dislodged by wave attack this past winter. Also, the steel sheet piles at
the eastern portion of this groin are loose due to the damaged cap. Winter wave conditions have caused
significant erosion at the end of the Orchard stone groin. Wave attack at the east end of the damaged
groin causes water jets through the steel sheet joints and uneven overtopping flow and turbulence on
the Orchard side of the steel groin.
This situation has caused a deep scour hole formation on both sides of the groin. On the Orchard beach
side of the scour, the scour hole is 7’ or deeper with a scour hole width that is 50 to 60 feet wide. The
deepest area is immediately south of the steel groin and east of the Orchard stone groin. The scour
extends to the Orchard stone groin toe of slope. We propose to add toe stones to buttress the existing
stone groin toe stones to address the scour impacts. The proposed line of toe stones will front the
existing toe of the stone groin and will be buried to the clay layer elevation. The added toe stones will
rest on clay. And the toe stones will be recessed below the existing lakebed as shown on the attached
drawings. We have met with the Park District to discuss this issue.
We have met with the Winnetka Park District to make them aware of this matter. Please let us know if
you approve this request. Please issue a letter of determination regarding this proposed plan adjustment.
If you have any questions, please call me on the following number (847 - 323 -2171).
Best Regards,
William J. Weaver, P.E., BC.WRE
Vice President – Sr. Principal Engineer
1|1
Page 146 of 157
SCOUR HOLE BOTTOM (7' DEEP)
OUR RE UEST FOR TOE STONES TO
ADDRESS THE EROSION CAUSED BY THE
WINNETKA PARK DISTRICT GROIN NO
LONGER INCLUDES REPAIR TO THAT
GROIN. THIS GROIN IS A WINNETKA PARK
DISTRICT STRUCTURE. WE HAVE NOTIFIED
THE PARK DISTRICT AND MET WITH THEM
TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER
A
PROPOSED 4.25 TON TOE STONES ON CLAY
B
7'
30
20
1.5:1
1.5:1 1.5:1 1.5:1
577 x586
x587
578
1.5:1 1.5:1
577
579 578
1.5:1 579
0
58 580
1.5:1
581
581
582
2 x586
58 1.5:1
N 583
583
584
584
585
585
Page 147 of 157
Page 148 of 157
Page 149 of 157
Page 150 of 157
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Subject: Letter to ZBA for March 9 meeting packet
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 8:34:22 PM
Attachments: ZBA Comments for Packet 3-4-26.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Anne -
Hope this finds you well. Would you please include my letter and the attached photos to the ZBA in
the March 9, 2026 meeting packet? Thank you very much for your assistance.
Vicki
Page 151 of 157
Vicki Garrison Apatoff
Page 152 of 157
Dear Zoning Board of Appeal Commissioners:
Less than 30 years ago, residents and visitors could walk, swim, kayak, and paddleboard
unimpeded along Winnetka’s shoreline from Glencoe to Kenilworth. It was a beautiful, peaceful
stretch of beach that functioned as nature intended — water levels rose and fell, sand came
and went, and people walked past the dog beach without fear or fences.
Due to the lack of oversight by the IDNR and Army Corps of Engineers, that same shoreline
has been transformed into a dangerous and, in some areas, impassable section of Lake
Michigan that is no longer freely accessible to the public.
By turning a blind eye to the destruction of lakefront bluffs and the installation of massive rock
walls that block safe passage, the IDNR has allowed unchecked and irreversible damage to the
entire ecosystem of Winnetka's lakefront.
When concerned residents contacted the IDNR Director, Jim Casey, he stated that Winnetka
held ultimate authority over what could occur along the beach and a half-mile into the lake —
and that complaints should be directed to the Village, not the IDNR.
Residents were stunned to learn that so much destruction had occurred without Village
oversight. The Village ultimately asserted its authority through lakefront ordinance protections,
which is what has brought this special use permit request before you tonight.
It is time to stop further degradation of our beaches.
Please consider the stated purpose of the Winnetka Lakefront Preservation Overlay District: “to
preserve and maintain the character” of the lakefront and “to conserve and encourage the use
of land adjacent to Lake Michigan for open space preservation… to protect natural resources
and save scenic vistas.”
Now consider the Winnetka Park District’s own mission statement: “To provide a balance of
quality recreation and leisure opportunities while protecting assets, natural resources, and
open space to benefit present and future generations.”
The Village and the WPD share the same goals. That makes it all the more alarming that the
WPD’s current request runs directly counter to them — particularly given that the proposed
fenced dog beach was never requested by residents or dog beach pass holders - but only
emerged as a concession during negotiations with the neighbor to the south of Centennial
Park.
We ask the WPD and this Board to consider the following:
∙ How does a massive chain-link enclosure on one of Winnetka’s most beautiful
beaches conserve the character of our natural resources, preserve open space, or protect
scenic vistas?
∙ When metal fence cages and electrified fob posts are installed along the beach,
how does that benefit present or future generations? For over 30 years, people and dogs have
enjoyed this beach in its natural state — not confined in a cage.
∙ What liability do present or future generations of Winnetka taxpayers assume
when an untested system falls into disrepair, or someone is seriously injured when trapped
between metal structures and boulders by an artificial wall in the water? Have the Winnetka
police and fire departments reviewed this fence proposal to comment on any impact it may
have on the ability of first responders to do their job in an emergency?
Page 153 of 157
∙ How does locking Winnetka taxpayers into a 50-year moratorium — requiring
written approval from a neighboring private party before anything can be done in that area —
serve the public interest?
∙ Has a signed easement been provided by the same neighbor to allow the public
to traverse the shoreline if expected changes in shoreline conditions require passage along
private property due to the addition of a fence?
∙ The ZBA asked the WPD to come back with a global picture of the Elder/
Centennial beach plan in its entirety so that permit decisions could be made in context with its
surrounding areas. Is it possible to determine the viability or prudence of an unusual and
unprecedented request for a fence on the beach when the rest of the surrounding project has
not yet been finalized?
The residents of Winnetka deserve better — and they are counting on the ZBA to reach the
same conclusion as the Plan Commission, which voted unanimously to deny a special use
permit for any fence on the beach. The future of our precious and fragile lakefront depends on
it.
Please remember what the word Winnetka means: A beautiful place. Our beachfront is called
Winnetka's greatest natural asset for a reason. Please honor that designation. There are no
conditions that would make this SUP request for a fence/cage acceptable. Please deny the
request for a Special Use Permit.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration,
Vicki Apatoff
730 Ardsley Road
Winnetka
Page 154 of 157
Page 155 of 157
Page 156 of 157
Engineers Comment 11 from 5 Aug version of WPD application for SUP
11. Proposed fence around dog park, specifically along the southern end of the dog area, will
need to be placed far enough away from the existing steel groin and new stone groin on
neighboring property to allow for ample safe passage between the properties.
a. PD Response: The proposed dog beach fence is to be located on the existing steel
groin to the south, offset 6’ min. width from the newly installed stone groin at the
south neighbor property, as shown on sheet C138.
b. Engineering Response: Recommend a larger space between the two elements be
provided, as a wider pathway opening would be preferred to allow for easier passage
and for access of emergency equipment to the adjoining property.
winpark.org | (847) 501-2040 | 540 Hibbard Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
c. WPD Response: The dimension verified in the field is a minimum of 6’ between two
currently fixed structures, the new stone breakwater built on 205 Sheridan Road
Property and the current southernmost steel groin, which has been in place for over
70+ years. The 6’ dimension is from the newly built passage steps across the 205
Sheridan Road Breakwater and widens from there as you move west to over 10’ plus
as you approach the existing steel groin. The area between the western off-leash dog
fencing and existing steel sheet piling is greater than 12’, which leaves ample room
for access. The fencing plan is detailed on sheet C147 of the Bid and Construc
Page 157 of 157