Lake Geneva Alderwomen Stand up For Neighborhoods

In Lake Geneva, a dispute over trees, sidewalks and setbacks reveals how small planning decisions quietly favor developers over neighborhoods, until councillors decide otherwise

The whole thing began the way these things always do in Lake Geneva: quietly, efficiently, and just out of earshot of the public.

At a special meeting on January 6, 2026, Mayor Todd Krause’s pro-development Plan Commission rubber-stamped the Final Plat for Symphony Bay Phase 8, tucked neatly into the southwest corner of Townline Road and North Road, a place where farmland used to breathe and now subdivisions multiply like rabbits on Red Bull. The vote was unanimous. Of course it was. Alderperson Joel Hoiland, John Gibbs, Doug Skates, Jeremy Nafziger, Kyle Cary, and Anne Esarco all nodded in harmony and sent it down the pipe.

Six days later, the plan hit the City Council floor, and that’s when the mood shifted from procedural sleepwalk to open irritation.

The problem wasn’t the houses. It was the landscaping. Or rather, the landscaping the developer wouldn’t have to pay for.

Brian Pollard, the developer, had been a strong supporter of Todd Krause’s election campaign, which is one of those facts that just sits there on the table, blinking slowly, while everyone pretends it isn’t relevant.

Enter Jackie Mich, AICP, City Planning Consultant of Vandewalle & Associates, who committed the cardinal sin of saying out loud what competent planning actually looks like.

She recommended the following:

Landscaping Plan

The PIP Landscaping Plan includes a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees along all lots adjacent to North Road with landscaping, which is intended to provide more privacy for these residents. Open space areas along the perimeters of the site will consist of turf (grass). Quality plant species have been selected. Most are native species and should do well in this location. The proposed sugar maple, burr oak, and little leaf linden included in the Landscaping Plan are high quality shade trees that will add value to the neighborhood. Additional trees are clustered along North Road south of Bach Way with the intention of screening lots from the view of the neighbors across the street.

Then she made the fatal mistake of explaining why it mattered.

Staff feels that screening the homes in Phase 8 from activity on North Road should also be a priority. In particular, the rear lot lines of Lots 838-868 are within 10 feet of the right-of-way line and within 30 feet of the roadway surface. Since minimum rear setbacks are only 15 feet, the rear of a house could potentially be built only 45 feet from the roadway surface. In such instances, rear yards should be screened to the greatest extent possible to provide privacy for residents. Overall, staff feels that the Landscaping Plan does not include enough landscaping along the east property line to adequately screen homes from North Road and provide privacy. Staff feels that improvements could be made to provide better screening, enhance the appearance of the neighborhood, and boost the appeal of all of the homes along North Road.

This was not radical talk. This was basic urban hygiene. But it hit the room like a bad acid flashback.

Specifically, the tall shade trees will provide little to no screening at the road level where screening is most needed. The Landscaping Plan should keep the proposed shade trees and add large, deciduous and evergreen shrubs to provide screening to the homes and backyards and buffer the traffic on North Road. Shrubs are lower plantings that will block views and headlights closer to ground level. They will also fill in faster than the trees and provide more immediate screening/buffering.

And then, because this is Lake Geneva, we went even deeper into the weeds.

Regarding the placement of the proposed plantings, many trees are placed on the shared lot line between homes, rather centered on the homes and backyards. As a result, homes and backyards are not well screened from North Road. Adding shrubs as suggested above and/or placing trees behind the homes in addition to between the homes would provide better rear yard screening.

And finally, the unpardonable sin: foresight.

Finally, evergreen trees should not be planted on or close to the lot line/right-of-way line. As they grow, they will encroach into the right-of-way. Additionally, any trees (evergreen or deciduous) planted close to the lot line may need to be removed to allow for future improvements within the North Road right-of- way, particularly future curb and gutter. All trees should be placed fully off of the lot line, and evergreen trees specifically should be shifted several feet back from the lot line, as they are more likely to encroach into the right-of-way as they grow.

That should have been the end of it. But then came public comment, and Peggy Esposito lit the fuse.

“Our consultants, Jackie Mish, from Vandewalle, asked that we do plantings along North Avenue. She asked that there were two trees per house and maybe some bushes in order to buffer the sound and and kind of create a a visual separation between the farmland.
And this development and what was approved by the Planning Commission was one tree halfway in the middle of every lot that seems to be a little. Short sighted and I think.
That you know, while we are asking the developer to do a little bit more expense, I don’t think that it’s an outrageous amount of expense. And I do think that it will increase the just the beauty of the area because right now it just looks like crap. No offense to anyone.”

At this point, the machine tried to reassert control. Bros Joel Hoiland made a motion, seconded by Brian Smith, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation, conveniently stripped of everything Vandewalle & Associates had recommended.

Alderperson Fesenmaier threw a wrench into the gears with an amendment requiring the developer to pay for the actual recommended landscaping, not the decorative minimum.

Hoiland didn’t like that.

He argued that if homeowners wanted more trees and bushes, they should pay for it themselves. Requiring the developer to pay, he said, would be:

“sticking it to the developer at Symphony Bay.”

Alderperson Frame wasn’t buying it.

“They’re trying to get something. Out of what they had been promised, and now that they’re cutting down all the trees and they (the plan commission) don’t want trees in there except for one and two, …they’re just trying to stand up for what they were promised”

Then Cathy Stoodly climbed aboard.

“There’s an overwhelming concern for people that were there about how we lose the feel of a neighborhood, so I’m just going to say, go on record every time I drive by Symphony Bay. I don’t find it looks like a neighborhood. That’s my personal opinion. But right here we have an opportunity to do that. Our whole goal here is to look towards the future.”

And then, the line that should be engraved above the Council chambers:

…trees do make neighborhoods green space.”

Cathy Stoodly

The meeting ended the only way these meetings ever end: tense, personal, and on the record.

Fesenmaier fired first:

“And again, interesting terminology by one of the Alderman about sticking it to a developer when it was so. The staff then would be the ones sticking it to the developer. That is because it was their recommendation.”

Hoiland snapped back :

“Alderwoman is putting words in my mouth and I resent that. So, I want that on the record that that’s an inappropriate comment to make. And you know, I’m just simply making a statement that by doing this you are adding to the cost and the burden on the developer.”

In the end, the staff recommendation passed, carried by all the women on the Council. Mary Jo Fesenmaier, Cindy Yager, Sherri Ames, Linda Frame, JaNelle Powers, and Cathy Stoodley voted yes. Bros Brian Smith and Joel Hoiland voted no.

Hoiland’s final defense was tradition: it hadn’t been done in the previous seven phases, so why start now.

And just when you thought the meeting was over, Fesenmaier opened another can of worms: sidewalks. Only one side of the street is required. A chronic Lake Geneva failure masquerading as policy.

Because sidewalks on both sides of a street aren’t luxuries. They’re survival gear.

Safety. Predictability. Accessibility. Neighborhoods that function instead of fracture.

One sidewalk assumes people behave like diagrams. Two sidewalks accept reality.

And reality, in Lake Geneva, has a habit of walking wherever it damn well pleases.

Sidewalks on both sides of a street aren’t urban frills. They’re basic infrastructure that fixes several real problems at once.

1. Safety beats wishful thinking
If there’s only one sidewalk, people will still walk on the other side. They just do it in the street or on a narrow shoulder. Two sidewalks cut crossings in half and reduce the roulette of darting through traffic.

2. People follow the path of least resistance
Humans don’t like detours. If the sidewalk is across the street, many won’t cross just to walk “correctly.” Dual sidewalks meet people where they are, literally.

3. Kids, seniors, and strollers aren’t agile
Frequent crossings are hardest for the most vulnerable. Two sidewalks mean fewer curb hops, fewer rushed crossings, fewer close calls.

4. Traffic stays predictable
Drivers expect pedestrians at intersections and along sidewalks, not wandering in the roadway because infrastructure ran out. Predictability reduces accidents.

5. It knits neighborhoods instead of slicing them
A single sidewalk turns the road into a barrier. Two sidewalks turn it into a seam. Both sides stay connected to homes, schools, parks, and bus stops without forcing a crossing tax.

6. It’s cheaper than dealing with crashes later
Sidewalks cost money once. Injuries, lawsuits, emergency response, and retrofits cost money forever.

7. Accessibility laws don’t care about excuses
ADA access isn’t optional or aesthetic. Continuous sidewalks on both sides make compliance straightforward instead of a patchwork of ramps to nowhere.

Bottom line: one sidewalk is a compromise that pretends people behave like traffic diagrams. Two sidewalks accept reality and design for it.