Shorewood board pauses appeal by George Washington Lodge over denied occupancy permit

The Village of Shorewood Board of Appeals on Dec. 11, 2025, voted unanimously to adjourn an appeal by George Washington Lodge No. 337 of the zoning administrator’s denial of a commercial occupancy permit for 4121 N. Wilson Drive so the board can review a missing Oct. 20, 2025, response and related exhibits before issuing a ruling.

The dispute centers on how the village’s zoning code classifies the lodge’s planned activity. Applicant counsel Debbie Tomczak told the board the narrow, tri‑level building (about 4,400 square feet on a site just over a half‑acre) is best suited to a mix of office and small event‑venue uses and that classifying the project as “community assembly” with Shorewood’s 20‑foot locational restriction would leave only about 10 feet of usable depth from the primary façade, effectively preventing the proposed reuse. “A picture is worth 1,000 words,” Tomczak told the board while walking through site plans and floor layouts.

Village counsel (identified in the record as Attorney Baer) urged the opposite interpretation. Citing the village zoning exhibits and printouts from the lodge’s own website, he argued the code treats “fraternal organizations” as a community‑assembly descriptor and that the property’s principal use therefore would be a fraternal lodge. Under Shorewood’s GX‑2 zone, Baer said, accessory uses such as office space and event rentals are only allowed in connection with a lawfully established principal use; if the principal use is disallowed or restricted, accessory uses are not reached in the analysis. During his remarks he used a plain‑language analogy, saying, as he put it, “do not pass go, do not collect $200,” to emphasize that the board should decide principal‑use first.

Tomczak also warned of federal statutory risks if the village’s code were applied to restrict the lodge because of its identity and suggested that classifying the project under event or office uses would avoid potential claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Baer countered that questions of constitutionality or litigation are beyond the board’s role, which is to determine whether the director applied the code correctly as written.

A procedural question emerged when board members and staff identified an Oct. 20, 2025 email response to the zoning administrator that was referenced in materials but whose attachment had not been included in the packet distributed to members. Several board members said that three‑page attachment could be material to the board’s evaluation; one member moved that the board be supplied with the missing attachment and reconvene after members have had time to review it. Kevin Matthews moved to adjourn to allow review of all evidence, seconded by Chair Wendy Smith.

The motion carried 5‑0. Votes recorded in favor were Cara Espara, Don Tutanoff, Wendy Smith, Steven Isaacson and Kevin Matthews. The clerk will place the applicant’s Oct. 20 response and the parties’ PowerPoint into an updated agenda packet; staff will schedule a reconvened hearing date and notify board members. The board did not take a final position on whether the lodge’s proposed activities are properly classified as community assembly, event venue, or office; that question remains pending review of the newly entered materials.

What happens next

The hearing is adjourned rather than decided. The Board of Appeals directed staff to add the Oct. 20, 2025 response and the applicant’s PowerPoint to an updated agenda packet ahead of the reconvened meeting. The board will reconvene at a later date to consider the additional materials and then deliberate on whether the village zoning administrator erred in classifying the application as community assembly and denying the occupancy permit.

Key details

- Property: 4121 N. Wilson Drive, Shorewood
- Applicant/appellant: George Washington Lodge No. 337 (appeal filed Nov. 5, 2025)
- Building: tri‑level, roughly 4,400 sq ft total; site just over one‑half acre; approximately 30 feet front‑to‑back depth
- Administrative timeline in record: application filed on or about Oct. 2, 2025; denial email dated Oct. 30, 2025; applicant’s responsive email dated Oct. 20, 2025 (attachment not initially included in the packet)
- Board action: Motion to adjourn to receive and review omitted materials carried 5‑0 (mover: Kevin Matthews; second: Wendy Smith)

The board’s role remains to determine whether the zoning administrator applied Shorewood’s code correctly to the permit application; it will not, at this stage, decide constitutional claims that might be raised in court.