Shorewood board votes to negotiate development agreement for 19‑unit affordable project at Oakland Avenue after heated public hearing

The Village of Shorewood on March 16 voted to direct staff to negotiate a development agreement with Spiro Commercial LLC for a 19‑unit affordable housing project proposed at 4448–4450 North Oakland Avenue, after an extended public hearing and trustee questions about financing and neighborhood impacts.

Baker Tilly municipal advisors presented a phase‑2 review of the developer’s application and concluded the developer has the managerial and financial capacity to pursue the project, while noting two material changes from phase 1: a newly required elevator that raised estimated construction cost and a 30‑year capitalized supportive‑services reserve. "Based on the information we have at this time, we did not raise concerns with the developer’s capacity to complete this project," Baker Tilly’s Dave Erdman said during the presentation.

The review also flagged two technical nonconformances with the village’s Policy 40 — potential payback provisions and an assistance amount that exceeds policy guidelines — but characterized both as common in affordable housing financing. Trustee questions focused on the capital stack (LIHTC, a Federal Home Loan Bank award, and a WEDA low‑interest mortgage), contingency if awards are denied, and what contractual protections the village would require. The motion approved by the board conditions further work on the developer securing state/federal awards and on a development agreement that binds the developer to build the project.

Residents and business owners made up the bulk of public comment, with many urging the board to pause negotiations. "Parking is limited, and removing this lot will only increase competition for street parking for both residents and local businesses," said Eden Goldring, a local business owner. Several speakers also said they had not received direct neighborhood outreach as required by the application and asked the board to require a more specific, address‑based outreach record.

Opponents raised questions about the size of the requested village subsidy. Multiple commenters and trustees cited apparent changes in the application’s subsidy request; a written application filed earlier listed $750,000 while recent discussions referenced up to $1.7 million if outside grants were not awarded. "No TIF, no WIDA, no project," the developer said during Q&A, framing the proposal as contingent on the public assistance and other award decisions.

Supporters, including housing advocates and some trustees, urged the board to use the village’s TID resources to create permanently affordable units in a high‑opportunity location. "We’ve identified affordable housing as a priority; 19 units is a modest but real contribution to that need," Trustee McGovern said during deliberations.

The board’s motion (passed 5–2) authorized staff to begin negotiations and directed that any agreement be contingent on WIDA (LIHTC) financing, other awards, and execution of a development agreement. Trustees and staff said additional public meetings and closed‑session negotiation steps would follow before any final contract or land sale.

What’s next: The developer’s LIHTC application and other grant decisions are on separate timetables; the board’s motion makes village assistance contingent on those awards and the negotiated development agreement. Trustees also asked staff to ensure clear, address‑based outreach and to bring back more detailed financial backup before final approvals.

Sources: Presentation and public comments at the Village Board meeting on March 16, 2026; Baker Tilly phase‑2 memo.