Good to go. All right. We will uh go ahead and call our board of adjustment meeting um to order um and adopt our agenda and approve our minutes from last month. I move to approve the um minutes as
submitted and the agenda. I'll second. All in favor? I I All right. Um, first order of be of business, uh, CWMG
LLC, uh, 202515V. Neva, thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a variance request for relief from the Cook County Zoning Ordinance Section 7.05 05 to replace and expand a principal structure at a reduced ordinary high water level
shoreline setback 59 ft from Gunflint Lake where a minimum of 100 ft is required at 341 Milo Pine Road. The applicant's property includes 1.94 acres with approximately 295 ft of Gunflint Lake Shoreline. The parcel is ina
contained entirely within LSR zone district. Newly created lots within the LSR zone must be 1 acre in size and 150 ft wide at the structure setback. As such, this is a conforming lot and Gunfoot Lake is classified as a recreational development lake. The
variance application requests to replace the existing cabin with a new principal dwelling at the same shoreline setback of 59 ft from the shoreline of Gun Lake. The existing singlestory cabin is 252 square f feet according to county records and the proposed replacement
three-story dwelling totals 5,144 square ft. Design plans also indicate a proposed garage at a conforming building site. For ordinance citations, the Cook County zoning ordinance section 7.05 05 lot sizes and setback requirements
outlines the requirement for recreational development lakes to have a 100 ft building setback from the ordinary high water level lakes. Residential non-conforming structures in Shorland area are granted certain rights
under Minnesota State Statutes 394.36 to be allowed to exist and can be repaired and maintained, even replaced in its exact configuration without variances. However, there is no inherent right for expansion to these structures.
In your packets on page 8, I included the state statute reference in which it does say that the grandfathered rights do not include expansion. Minnesota state statute is incorporated into the Cook County zoning ordinance under under section 9.02
where it says the continuence of residential non-conforming structures. also says that uh these ex these types of structures may be continued including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement but not including expansion. Expansion
of a nonconformity includes any increase in height of the structure. For background, the applicant CWMG LLC purchased the property in July of 2024. The property currently has a driveway, cabin, dilapidated remnants of a shed, and an outhouse on the property. County
records indicate that the cabin was built in 1963, predating the ordinance, but has an effective build date of 1985, indicating some maintenance overtime. The property is accessed from Mile Pine Road, a narrow, privately maintained road that provides access to properties
along the southshore of Gunfl. Included a bunch of photos in your staff reports. So, on the screen is the subject property noted. further towards the end of mileine road for site conditions and considerations
for the septic review. The variance application does not include details regarding the septic design or site specific capability or compatibility information. The county environmental health officer Jesse Johnson has
provided the following review. Environmental Health will require an approved septic permit for the future septic system before any land use permits are approved due to the vag septic plans in the variance application. The property must also be in total conformance with Minnesota state and county septic rules. For
imperous surface coverage, shoreland zoning uh limits impervious surface coverage to 25% maximum of the lot. At almost two acres in lot area, this lot can sustain a relatively large amount of development to be within that one 25% imperous
surface coverage allowance. The parcel will need to be covered by less than 21,000 square ft of impervious surface coverage to remain in compliance with shorland standards. The proposed structure is under that amount indicating that impervious surface coverage requirements
will be met for wetlands. wetlands are not an issue driving the need for the variance request. Since I wrote this report, our wetlands specialist Mitch Travis was able to do a site visit and he did confirm that there are no wetlands present on this property that
would limit development in other locations. For slope, the parcel does contain steep slopes about 18% which are considered uh are a consideration when evaluating practical difficulties related to the variance request. There is a bluff
feature on the south side of Mile Pine Road, but not on the subject property. Uh in this building location, there's a bunch of slope transacts that I took uh kind of demonstrating some of those different variation, but staying fairly steady around 17 18% in that location.
Structure placement is not prohibited on steep slopes, although the zoning ordinance does require additional best management practices during construction to con control storm water and erosion impacts. The application indicates a garage is planned to be placed at a conforming building site on the lot
where the steep slopes are located. For shoreline health, the property has old growth pines, some cedar trees, and a mix of younger deciduous and coniferous trees. Some tree removal is evident on site and would be necessary for construction of the proposed
structure. New development or construction activities within root tree zones of retained trees often result in tree mortality and may occur from the construction of the new structure. The application indicates retention of trees as a reason for the need for the variance
for shoreline setback averaging. The Cook County zoning ordinance has a formula to review requests for shoreline setback relief with regard to existing development on a budding proposed uh on on lots on either side of the proposed
variance location. When I applied that formula to this location, it uh identified the parcels on one parcel on either side of the subject property that were within the target location. uh the parcel to the east which was
granted a variance previously was about 35 feet from the shoreline and the parcel to the west is about 90 ft from the shoreline. Uh when I did the average of both of those it came up identified a 75 ft structure setback relief could be
considered to kind of meet that is more or less seen as like a benchmark if you will. Um, let's see. So, there's the kind of comparison of the shoreline setback averaging on your screen. And then the table that's in your packet identifies
the size and uh proximity to the lake of those two structures. So, the property to the west has about a 90 foot um setback from the lake with about 1,000 square foot uh floor area structure. to the east is about 35 uh set foot setback
with about 1500 square foot floor area. This variance was granted in 2017. Um the findings noted that new construction will occur further from the shoreline than existing or adjacent cabin. practical difficulties and lack of
reasonable use um uh defined by deteriorating condition of the current structure were the findings of the board when I was reviewing that variance file and then for the subject parcel just as a reminder it's a 59 ft
setback and from the lake and the current structure is about 252 ft for floor area with a increase in the proposed ground floor area for the new structure for public noticing The application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on September
12th. 10 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as Cook County departments and the DNR hydraologist. Three written comments were received from adjoining property owners during the written comment period. Frank Co and Cindy Imdalio of
302 Mile Pine opposed to the request indicated that CWMG LLC was associated with the 2017 variance on the neighboring property which allowed an expansion in the form of a tearown rebuild does not want to see this pattern continued and wants the 100 foot
setback to apply equally. Greg Gekus from H's Lodge at 579 South Gunfl opposed to the request. experience recreating on Gunflint Lake shows many cabins are not visible from the lake. Notes that the 100 foot structure setback and shoreline vegetation are key
parts of that. Has noticed over recent years that there have been prominent second homes being built with landscaping visible from the lake. Feels that the tear down rebuild as proposed would disrespect the aesthetic and does not want variance approval unless a true hardship is demonstrated. And the third comment from Scott and Diane Hatfield at
304 mileine does not have an objection to the proposed setback of the residents requested in the variance. Technical comment letters were also received from Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District. The SWCD provided a technical memo noting that Gun Lake is located in
the Rainy River headwaters and the water quality Gun Lake is noted in good condition. notes that land use practices can impact water quality by carrying more storm water runoff into the lake when development is closer to the lake and provided best management practices to consider and the DNR area
hydraologists provided a technical memo outlining their review of the variance request relative to the practical difficulty standards. The DNR recommended denial of the variance based off of several reasons. They identified that there were no unique circumstances associated with the property. They felt
the request was not reasonable. Uh they said that the criteria is about what reasonable given the purpose of the ordinance not what's reasonable to the property owner and the variance request should only be the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose of the ordinance.
Um let's see the number three the variance will alter the essential charact. uh they spoke about essential character being the resulting structure. Improvement in land water disturbance will alter hydrarology, nutrient flow into water, soil stability, vegetation
habitat, shoreline character or be out of scale with the capacity of the land and water resource to tolerate the impact. Uh the variance will increase the amount of impervious surface close to the shore and increasing imperous surface and subsequently decreasing vegetation also eliminates the natural infiltration and treatment of runoff
from the property. And the number four, the DNR requests the board to consider the expansion size, septic regulations, and storm water control measures. And ultimately, they the DNR found the primary reason for the variance is a design preference,
which isn't a practical difficulty and approval uh wouldn't be fitting those standards for staff re staff consideration for findings. In fact, as as we're aware, we're supposed to review variances based
off of criteria outlined in state regulations. So, those questions are as follows. The variance is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use guide plan and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Cook County zoning ordinance and other Cook County official
controls. I cited the shoreline setback requirement of 100 ft for recreational development lakes are our standard setback. The current cabin is 59 ft from shoreline. The replacement cabin is proposed to meet the same setback. However, it does not meet the same size of the current cabin and is a
significant increase in size within the setback area. A setback of 75 ft may be considered per the shoreline setback averaging calculation for Cook County Zoning Ordinance Section 9.02, which is the substandard grandfathered in structure allowances.
uh does not permit expansion onto non-conforming residential structures. Cook County land use guide plan outlines a vision of the future in chapter 4 for Cook County 2035 where inland lakes and forests include water quality of lakes and streams is outstanding and being
sustained through citizen and agency monitoring, upgrading of septic systems, and enforcement of shoreline zoning regulations. Number four, Cook County Land use guide plan natural features and environmental concerns goal to maintain and enhance quality of natural resources and native ecosystems within the county. I provided
several different types of policy recommendations. Uh number 22 says evaluate cumulative effects of land use decisions on watershed and eco region scales include riparian ecosystem function and the permanent conversion of land. And number 17, consider visual
impact of landscape alteration and new development. And the land use guide plan administrative and intergovernmental goal to integrate land use concerns and all appropriate ongoing administrative actions with policy number 77, land use related decisions shall recognize the
need to duly consider the rights and responsibilities of the general public good with the corresponding rights and responsibilities of the individual variance. Question number two, proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use district in which the property is located. Proposed finding the parcel
is located shore residential. The subject property is conforming to the zone district and lake classification with 1.94 acres with approximately 295 ft of Gun Lake shoreline. Residential uses are permitted in this zone district. Question number three, the property
owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted in the zoning ordinance. Um there sorry my slides got a little goofed up here. That's that's the next question. But residential use is a permitted use
in Lakeshore residential zone district. However, the proposed replacement cabin represents a substantial expansion in both ground floor area and height compared to the existing non-conforming structure. Expansions of non-conforming structures are not a right and the proposed replacement does not reflect
the size and scope of the original cabin. The application also lacks sufficient technical details including storm water management, septic design, and a full dimensional drawing to evaluate potential impacts. Granting this variance would provide a significant amount of relief when alter
alternative building space exists on the parcel and the proposed structure would be more visible from the lake than the current cabin. Next question. and the property owner has established the practical difficulty involved is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The
applicant identifies in the original 1960s building site as the practical difficulty noting that the relocating the dwelling would require removal of significant trees and alteration of the natural landscape. The property also contains steep slopes which require additional design and construction
attention but do not on their own establish a practical difficulty. The application shows a garage proposed to be placed on the steep slopes, indicating that a more modest-sized cabin could alternatively be built at a conforming building site and retain desired trees. The Minnesota DNR finds that the facts do not demonstrate a
valid practical difficulty and that the variance request is driven primarily by landowner design preference. Staff concur with this assessment. The proposed variance is sought to expand an existing non-conforming structure. However, practical difficulties cannot be created by the landowner and cannot
rest on design preference alone. While the presence of mature pines is a unique feature of the site, preservation could be achieved through alternative building designs. As a reminder, the Cook County zoning ordinance stipulates that it shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate sufficient practical difficulties sustaining the need for the
variance and absent that showing the board of adjustment shall not prove any variance. Next question. in approving the variance maintain the essential character of the locality. The proposed structure does not fit the character of the current cabin on this parcel but may resemble the cabin on the
neighboring property that was granted a variance in 2017 due to the close proximity of this structure to the lake and the expansion of the second story. This addition will be more visible to lake users as compared to the current cabin. And the last one the property owner has established with practical
difficulty includes more than economic considerations alone. Economic considerations are not the reason for the variance request. Staff recommendations for consideration. Based on the information provided in the application, ordinance requirements, and public comments, staff cannot identify a
valid practical difficulty that would necessitate the variance. The request appears primarily driven by design preference rather than circumstances unique to the property. The scale of the proposed structure relative to the existing cabin and the size of the lot represents a significant expansion of a non-conformity. If preserving mature
growth trees is a priority, staff believe a modified cabin design could better fit the property while reducing impacts of the shoreline setback and overall visibility from the lake. Staff concur with the DNR that the facts do not support a sufficient practical difficulty to justify granting a variance. While existing non-conforming
structures may be maintained and improved, expansion beyond their current current footprint is not a right. The proposed increase in building size, height, and impervious surface would remove additional trees within the shoreland setback and increase visibility from the lake with potential storm water impacts in the absence of a
functional shoreland buffer. These impacts are contrary to the goals and policy of the Cook County land use guide plan and the intent of the Cook County zoning ordinance. If the board determines that the request is reasonable and that there is a practical difficulty present and can identify findings to support the variance, staff
recommend the board carefully consider the Minnesota DNR suggested conditions, which include requiring a valid septic system certificate of compliance prior to construction, requiring gutters and storm water management measures to redirect and filter runoff, adding native plantings to restore and enhance
the shoreline buffer, and prohibiting additional structures within the ordinary high water level. Thank you, Neva. At this point, the applicant or the representative, would you like to come forward and state your name and address for the record and add
anything you'd like to the narrative? Thanks. My name is Graham Gillette. I'm 635 Harwood Drive at De Mo, Iowa, and owner of this property, 341. I was a little nervous coming up here because the previous uh hearing you had, Dustin, Clay, and Stanley made no
comments. And as a communicator, I came with written comments. So, I'm nervous that I'm already messing myself up. And then Commissioner Sullivan brings tissues up here, which makes me think you're going to make me cry, so I'm a little nervous. So, we'll get started. But again, my name is Graham
Gillette, and I appreciate your your time. Um, our family formed CWMG LLC, which incidentally CWMG are the initials of my children. The purpose of the LLC was to uh there's really no tax benefit
for us or really legal benefit. The whole purpose of the LLC is to kind of formalize family decisions to uh alleviate fights down the road. So, we'll see how that works. But u that explains C CWMG. Um, my wife and I are longtime members of public boards, uh, as you are. I
chaired the De Mo Waterworks Board. I served on our local school board. My wife, incidentally, sits on the De Mo planning and zoning commission. So, we understand the responsibility and time that comes with your role and appreciate your service. Our family has been part of Gunflint Lake for generations. Uh Katie's
grandfather purchased property here in the 1960s and my own connection has grown through years of serving on the board of the Gunplint Lake Properties Association. That explains the uh our adjacent properties are uh owned by our extended
family. We purchased uh the cabin at 341 mile of pine which as Neva explained the original structure was built in the 60s to our uh best knowledge. Uh it is a one room uninsulated structure with no electricity, water and no compliant
septic system. It is simply no longer suitable for use and must be replaced with a safe code compliant residence that blends into the natural environment. So as I go through this, I mean the way that working with our architect and our builder and and working through this oursel, there are
really some considerations that we try to deal with and that is that elevation gain that comes on that property. um maintaining the forest around it with minimum disturbance. The sighteline from the lake I think is very important to
our neighbors and people that use the lake so that we don't have a structure that dominates the shoreline and that system uh compliance issue the septic and the runoff which I'll explain in a minute. But as Neva explained, the existing cabin sits at 59 ft from the
lake. The plan that's before you today uh moves it slightly further back with an average of 66 feet. One corner touches 59 feet. Uh in discussing this with the experts who've been helping us, relocating the cabin to 75 or 100 ft
would require uh removal of mature pines and cedars, exactly the natural features that give the site its character. Preserving those trees is both an ecological and aesthetic priority for us. The elevation is a little tricky, too, and really has more to do with the
sighteline from the lake than a lot of things. You know, the further we go back, that bottom floor with you, if you will, is a is a basement, is a storage level basement. Um, but if you move back in that elevation, what you'll see from the lake is more of a a rock retaining
wall as opposed to it would be a little lower with a that first floor being closer to the ground. Um, so that elevation was a little tricky for us and that's what we're working with. Um, two years ago, and some of you may have visited the site and noticed this, a
significant white pine very near the existing cabin was struck by lightning. Uh, that charred struck trunk still sits on the ground. Um when the existing cabin is removed, the combination of the removal of the feld pine, the storage shed uh which has recently been
demolished, the wood shed which has recently been demolished, and the yet to be demolished existing cabin structure would create a fairly large open gap visible from the water. If the new building were placed further back, it would not uh that open gap would have to
be dealt with and may not uh preserve the wooded field that's there today, leaving that barren opening. Um, also, if you look at that drawing, there are two, if you if you move the proposed site back a little bit, if you move it
back to that 75 ft, there's one significant cedar that might have to come down, which is understandable. Uh our concern is if you're even in that 75, but definitely when you move back to that 100, there's a very significant white pine that I don't have the figure in front of me. I think it's a 38 inch
or a 40in da diameter pine. Significant height that we would lose that uh pine too. So that's one of the reasons why we were we're moving that back there. um considering this and really after listening to our neighbors concerns uh a
couple of which were on your slides today who wrote uh we've talked to them since and before um we really started to think about our design choices to re reduce that visibility from the lake. Um I brought a sample here just to kind of
show you something. This is a a pro sighting sample that we're working for which is a dark black color. Um, and the purpose of that, yeah, I think it's pretty, but uh the hope is with a a black siding like that
and a and a coordinating roof um material that will help it fade into the the the forest more than a a light wood or or a painted structure. Um, we also, as you saw in the design, we
purposfully designed a wraparound torch uh with a lower uh roof uh line to hopefully soften that transition between structure to woods um and kind of help it blend a little bit easier. Um,
we have heard and and we're thinking about it beforehand, but the the staff report has reminded us and we agree that working wherever this final cabin gets cited, working with uh experts, DNR, county, and others to plant native
vegetation uh to replace and enhance the shoreline is important and we're committed to doing that. We share the concerns of the DNR and the county staff about protecting water quality. We are committed to installing a septic system that not only meets but exceeds current standards. Um we've proposed on that
site plan you've seen a potential location of that, but obviously we'll work with the experts to determine if that's the best placement uh for such a set system. We're also committed to to a gutter and storm water system that will capture and filter runoff away from the
lake. Uh we think that's possible in this site even if it's a slightly further back. Uh these are not afterthoughts. They are all central to our plan. Um our lot is nearly 2 acres and the pro structure is well below the 25% imperous surface limit required by
um ordinance. We know some of our neighbors have expressed concern about precedent. Our intent is not to set a pattern of larger cabins to the shoreline but to demonstrate how to how replacement can done be done responsibly blending in and protecting the lake. And that blending in and protecting of the
lake is is really top of our list. Um, this variance does not alter the essential character of mileine. The new cabin will remain a seasonal recreational home screened by vegetation positioned further back than some nearby structures and designed to blend into its forest set for forested setting.
Uh, our request is not about economics, it's about stewardship. We uh by replacing an outdated and inadequate building with a sustainable structure that respects the shoreline, protects the lake, preserves what makes gunp. We believe this approach aligns with the
purpose of the countyy's zoning ordinance protecting water quality, natural uh character and the rights of the community as a whole. And just to recap, I mean, as we worked with our architect and builder and others, we we thought about the elevation, we thought about the trees, we thought about the
sighteline, and we continue to evaluate, and we'll have the right experts come back to you with those those code compliant systems, both the septic and the wastewater. Um, for these reasons, we respectfully ask for board approval
to approve the request. And I uh sincerely appreciate your time. And I'm sorry I talked so long, but I took up all the other guys time. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone from the public wish to speak on this application?
Hearing none, we'll close it to the public and discuss as a board and may have questions. Thank you. So, I did a site visit yesterday. Um, walking through the property, went down to the lakeside, looked back up, actually went over, looked at your uh
your fire suppression system, too. It needs a little work. Yeah. Um, I just haven't seen one that close up before, so I was curious. They're great systems. Yeah. And so, um, the, um, um, I looked at the layout of the property, considered staff
recommendations, particularly the DNR's conditions, and and, um, I I just generally find as I look at this that the uh, the the staff's proposal of looking at averaging and moving it back that additional 16 ft
makes more sense to me than than accepting at the at the 59 ft mark. Um there's just uh um I I could see some of the things in there that you were considering. Um we're um I don't recall
us ever having been we we do worry about vegetation but not retaining specific trees as a as a means of thought process here. So um um that's that's generally where I'm at having been on been on site.
Um, can I ask a clarifying question of NEVA on page nine, the site sketch, the setback on that site sketch is the standard 100 foot setback that line I believe. Yeah, this
Yep. So, this is from the applicant's uh design. So, the 100 ft structure setback is kind of bicting towards the back. Okay. Just wanted to make sure that was the standard setback. Yes. Y Jeff, you made a site visit to you. Did you?
Yeah, I was on here. Um walked around, probably showed up on the game cameras a number of different ways, but um there's been no bear this fall, so Okay, fine. Um, I I um after walking the site and
then reading the packet and reading staff stuff, I I have I have I I have some real concerns about this. Um, one of my issues is that it seems possible that this could be placed within the setback polygon, I'd call it,
with the sid set lot, the lake setback and so on. And it would also shorten the driveway, reduce impacts, and I I do allow the um um desire to
preserve large trees, but putting a driveway and a garage inside the critical root zones of some very large white pines really isn't a preservation approach. Um, those trees are fairly susceptible
to root compaction and disturbance by construction and you may very well lose them in 10 years due to the impacts versus moving this entire setup off to the side and and literally avoid
them. Um, I was quite struck by the DNR's um comments. I don't disagree with any of them. I think they raised some very valid points and I would be much more comfortable with this
if it met if it was within the setback polygon and met the requirements of of the lakes shore setbacks the 100 ft the 100 ft. Okay. I mean, I could I could just for clarification, I could support the 75 averaging, but to
move it back and and get it away from the lake and um reduce the impact upon the mature trees would be really nice if they could do that. Um all given this is a very steep site,
this is going to be it's going to be a messy construction project. there's, you know, it's not going to be a site you can just drop the house in between a bunch of trees and walk away. It's going to be very, very complicated. So, um, I
would tend to agree with staff and with DNR. It just doesn't seem like a reasonable request at this point. Um, I agree with the staff facts and findings. Um, I'm all for variations
with setbacks, but I do feel that this is very, very close. Um, and there's plenty of room to move that around to even get to a 75 foot and
still get the design and layout and the lake view. So, I would I would support the staff findings that um the 59 foot setback was not a good idea.
I didn't have the benefit of making the site visit, so I definitely wanted to hear both of yours, but on paper, that's the conclusion I came to as well, looking at that's why I wanted to clarify that polygon. Um, yeah, it it looks to me like there's
clear clear space on the right side. Um, just thinking about the practical difficulty of the site. Um, and I also in considering the Minnesota statute, I think, you know, we're not talking about a replacement in really any way. Um, but
so so that's sort of a non-starter in terms of replacing the cabin in my mind. Um, and I yeah, I would generally agree with the DNR's assessment as well. I I also take into consideration that
the setback averaging is happening uh bearing in mind a structure that was approved through a variance by the same owner. And while it's not specifically uh a consideration like we normally make where you can't create the uh practical
difficulty, I think I do want to bear in mind that the setback average is taking into consideration actions taken by the applicant. Um it's our family, but we're related to them. So your point your point is still well taken. We don't own it, but our
family does. I I guess to my my point being that, you know, I I wasn't sitting on the board in 2017, but I would have questions about that setback as well. I actually pulled that variance, asked Neva to provide me that variance, and she did. And I read through it and um um
it probably would have gotten a fair bit more challenge from me than than apparently happened in 2017. I was a bit bit surprised at what they came up with, but I did not go over and walk that property. So there might be some things that they Well, there are certainly things that they knew about that I
don't. So, um, we'll just leave it at that. I did I did take time to read it, though, just because it it is on the averaging impact. It's it's huge, right? That you've got one that's 35 ft from the lake. Yeah, that's very close.
That skews that skews the average. Yeah. So I would come down uh with Jeff and say I I would be more comfortable with the 100 foot setback as it's stated given that I I don't see a practical difficulty to do otherwise in
my mind. Yeah. I would I guess my opinion and what I would state is generally when we're looking at practical difficulty it would it would be pertaining to the topography um some reason and I don't think we're
seeing that in this site um so that with that I guess can I could I just make one response to yes and that is and I probably shouldn't say this I've never done anything like this before right I mean I I am uh having sat
on public boards. I I appreciate and um can understand your rationale to do all of this and you're you know a lot more about these things than I do and so I probably shouldn't start with that but um
working with people who have been involved this our architect and our builder and others is how we got here today. Yeah, I don't have to me whether it sits at 59 ft, 66, 75 ft or 100 ft. Those are all
numbers to me that doesn't it's not like I'm fighting for something because I have some strong opinion on it. Uh what what I had been told was there would be some like I say that elevation gain you might see more of a retaining wall from the lake as you move back because of the
elevation gain. So there's, you know, there's a there's a a sighteline preference for keeping it within that maybe 75 ft range, the the two trees that are impacted there. And I think Mr. Lee is right. You know, I have real concerns about building close to
especially that that significant white pine because I think you're you're likely to do some damage with that. And so I get that. And so that's why we came here today thinking, well, maybe this is a a way to do that. But again, I leave that obviously to this board. And what
I'm told is in that if we move back to that 75 ft, which I think is more than reasonable, you lose one cedar, um, moving it back and maybe even repositioning to that 100 ft. We'll have to give some thought about, you know, what pine we can save or what, you know,
or what we can't. The other thing I'll just say, it no, I guess it doesn't really matter. We put the the garage on the site because we wanted to be transparent about what our hopes and dreams are, right? I don't think we're going to build the garage initially. At some point, we would like
to do that. Um, but I also want to say that regardless of where the house gets structured and if and where the the the final garage is, we have no intention to have any building closer to the lake than what the the house is. Uh because
we do we do feel strongly that um the the structure next door sits far too aggressively on the site uh than we would build today uh than than I think is appropriate. You that cabin is more visible on the the lake than I think
most anything else. And so that's why we won't be started with the our idea of our design. Our whole hope is that we build something that disappears into the shoreline. Uh, and so I it makes me sound like I'm being defensive. That's why I came here today. But I can understand all of the points you make
about uh, you know, positioning it and and I agree with the the storm water runoff and all of those things and we will we will be good neighbors regardless what the decision is here today. And I I know I can speak for, but we appreciate your comments. I think what
we're really seeing is we're not seeing tangible evidence to what the architect or or the professionals you're talking to are telling you if if I believe you can come back with another application if you so chose with details of well
this percent slope on a driveway is unsafe or going to create this much more erosion or some of that type of detail would give us something more to consider. But with the ordinance we have, it's it really kind of dictates defeating my own case for today to be
honest with you. But the the the difficulties are the removal of those trees. We do have that existing drive which is a nice benefit to have an existing drive that we can build into. Um, but the real driving force from a personal standpoint, my wife and I, was
developing a design that disappeared more into the forest. And that's why we kind of were talked into this this concept does that better. If you tell us 75 ft, if you tell us 80 ft, you tell us 100 feet, we're still going to try to make it disappear into the surface. You're the experts on on how many feet
need to be back. So, I'll stop talking. Thank you. Um, all right. Any more discussion or entertain a motion? Um, do we have to accept the application as
submitted or do we say, you know, on condition that it's changed to a 75 ft setback, it can be approved as a condition or is it a this is their request, which we respect when people come in and tell
us what they would like to do with their properties. they, you know, it's their property, it's the things they want to do, it's their dreams. We're not trying to rain on somebody's parade here. But we also have the constraints of the law about practical difficulty. And as we can see, most everybody that's been around through this this discussion is
not seeing it. So, is is that a uh within our purview? I would just say that I would amend my was possible even to amend it. I could amend it to whatever you wanted to if
that made it easier or anything for Jim. Yeah. You wanted I was waiting on my toes and be educational. Oh, sure. We'll let Tim take this. He doesn't have many meetings left.
Um the board can um approve in part or in whole. So it's not amending the application if you were to and I believe the suggestion was to not necessarily go the 59 but 77 or whatever distance in there.
It would be approving no closer than uh anything be uh that's further back than the 59 ft. That's that's not amending the application. That would be making your own decision based on that. Then they would have to work with whatever the decision was going to be. So you
could make it 59 77 80 100 and 100 would basically be just denying the variance all together. Yeah. Because then it would be building within a compliant Yeah. footprint. So my question then is if we are say uh
75 ft do we still need to show a practical difficulty in 75 ft because even then there's no practical difficulty at 75 ft shoreline and I'll staff shoreline averaging is a permitted method of
establishing setback. I think we've seen that as a reasonableness element. You know, kind of looking at the different criteria and director Nelson can weigh into I've always viewed the shoreline setback averaging as kind of reasonable. How close how much of the request is
okay? But I don't I have never seen that as just kind of a blank check for practical difficulty. But this is a good question. No, it is a tool that's allowed by the DNR and basically yes, we have used that as a just one of the tools in the toolbox to evaluate from.
Whereas some counties go and expressly state that if you can meet the shoreline setback averaging, you you can use that as a specific practical difficulty. Our ordinance does not say that. Okay. So, it does not say that. That is correct.
So we we'd either be approving this or or denying it because then the acceptable limit because I don't know that the we can say the even at 75 ft that we're talking about a practical difficulty. Correct.
And that 75 ft is only due to that other one that's at 35 then yeah in terms of how it's arrived at. Yeah. There's a waiting factor there, but the um I think from just a I think we're agreed that there's not a
practical difficulty. Correct. As a result, I don't see how we can approve the request as it's submitted with, you know, just encourage you to reconsider for a compliant 100 foot setback. Yeah, Mr. Mr. I'd be much more
comfortable seeing a a new a denial of a new application that lays out how this all fits together in an attempt to meet that setback polygon, so to speak. and and I', you know, if we were to go there, I'd also encourage
that um some of the the elements that staff pointed out that we didn't receive like the the septic plan and spacing and placing and all that other stuff be included cuz uh um Yep. I feel that. So basically
I move due to the absence of practical difficulties that we decline this application. I would second that. We've got a motion in a second. Any more discussion? Mr. Chair, Neva, is this adopting the findings that were
in the staff report as well? We go back and look. Um finding started on page 21. Yeah, it's just a different it's numbering different way. Yeah. Uh that would be 15
electronically 17. I am comfortable, but it's not my motion. So, yeah, I'm just taking a quick I've read this three or four times now. Yeah. So, um amend amend my motion for a
recommended observation and agreement with staff findings that this application be to comply be declined in view of uh there's no practical difficulty finding that we have available to us. Courtney, do you
I do second that. Denied. Denied. Denied. Motion. Clear. That's denied. Okay, we're clear. Yeah. Substitute the word declined to with denied. Thank you. Thank you.
And with that, I'll call for a vote. All in favor of the denial. The denial uh motion say I I opposed. Hearing none. I appreciate your time in cooporation. I think it was very fair. Yeah, I
encourage you to work with the staff and come on back, you know, or you may not even have we'll we'll we'll try to work it in. But I I appreciate the your time. It was very fair. Don't forget your sign.
Mr. Chair, I'd make a motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? I Okay. So, now I have a question. So deny or decline. Deny deny.