Okay, let's go ahead. >> All righty. We will call the April 8th, 2026 Board of Adjustment meeting to order. We'll start by approving the agenda and the minutes. >> I will motion to approve the agenda and minutes. >> All right. Do I have a second?
>> I would second that. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I All those opposed? Seeing none, agenda and minutes are approved. go to new business and start with 2026-5E Stageber Stagber Nea.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first item is a variance request for relief from Cook County zoning ordinance section 7.05 05 and 7.14 B1 to allow after the-act relief for a 12x20 accessory structure to remain 25 ft from the ordinary high water level of Double Track Lake,
classified as a recreational development lake where a minimum of 100 ft is required and within the shore impact zone at 966 Double Track Road. The property includes 5.36 acres with approximately 426 ft of double track lake shoreline. The parcel is zoned lakes shore residential within the first
300 feet of the lake and F3 zone district beyond 300 ft. Newly created lots within the zone district must be 1acre in lot size and 150 ft wide at the structural setback and double track league is classified as a recreational development lake. The applicant Mr. Stagberg is requesting after the fact
relief to allow a 12x20 accessory structure to remain within the short impact zone within 25 ft of double track lake. The variance application identifies the structure as an enclosed screen porch to be used to enjoy the lake without bugs. The structure was brought to the land services department's attention in 2025 and the
violation enforcement officer began communication with the land owner shortly thereafter to bring the property into compliance. The Cook County Zoning Ordinance Section 7.05 05 outlines lot sizes and setbacks for different lake classifications and that outlines the recreational
development lake setback requirements. The shore impact zone as I've mentioned is a definition by the Minnesota DNR in the state shoreland rules and it's defined as the shore impact zone is the land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line
parallel to it at a setback of 50% of the required structure setback. So on this property where it's a 100 ft structure setback, the shore impact zone is the first 50 ft from the lake. Under Minnesota State Shoreland Rules 6120, the shore impact zone is defined management area extending landward from
the ordinary high water level, typically 50% of the required structure setback. The shore impact zone serves to preserve the natural character and ecological function of the shoreline. Placements of structures is prohibited or highly restricted within this area and only limited uses may be allowed if they meet
strict criteria. Cook Countyy's zoning ordinance is required to be at least as restrictive as the state standards. Some counties do allow what's called a water oriented accessory structure. However, Cook County does not permit these on inland lakes and only allows them under specific circumstances as a conditional
use on Lake Superior. Figure one in the packet shows the structure is viewed from Devil Track Lake. Uh the subject structure of this variance request is the red structure and the applicant's cabin can be seen a
little bit to the right of that. For background, the property was granted a variance in 1985 to allow by a 10 by30 deck to be placed 85 ft from the shoreline to place a deck on the house. The house was has an actual build date
of 1956, so is a legal nonconformity if it is in the setback, which I might not be. Uh, the garage indicates an effective build date of 1990, but presumably was placed before zoning regulations as no actual build date is noted. Ross and Michelle Stagberg have been the owners of this property since
2015. No land use permits are on file for the property. The enforcement notice identified two permitted unpermitted structures of the subject screen. the subject screened in accessory structure as well as modifications to the front entry which meets Lake Setbacks.
On the screen there you can see aerial imagery we have available um at the county. So the figure two in your packets is aerial imagery from 2018 which uh in there this subject structure is not on the property yet. And then
current aerial imagery shows the structure um in figure six I believe for site conditions and considerations. Uh for septic the Cook County Environmental Health Officer Jesse Johnson provided the following comments.
After reviewing the variance application have determined the septic inspection will be required before any land use permits may be approved and the lot must be in conformance with Minnesota state and county septic rules. For impervious surface coverage, the 5acre parcel meets impervious surface requirements. For wetlands, the application states that
wetlands are a physical feature inhibiting the ability to place the accessory structure at a conforming setback location of 100 ft from the shoreline. However, no technical supporting data such as a wetland delineation was provided to indicate wetland locations. Cook County wetland specialist Mitch Travis conducted a
desktop technical review uh as seen as figure five um of potential wetland locations. This review indicates that there are likely upland areas on the property that meet the 100 foot setback requirement and provide conforming buildable space on the prop parcel. A
memo is enclosed which states as follows. Please refer to the attached map I've sketched to relate my areas of concern for the Stagberg property situated on the north shore of Double Track Lake. While wetlands are present on the western half of the property nearest to the lake, there are many acres of buildable area which exist on
the northern half of the property. While it may not provide aesthetic views of the lake in these areas, it is important to recognize that the structure could be built in an area that meets all zoning requirements and avoids further impacts on neighboring wetlands. The picture on the screen that has the
green blob, uh, the green blob is identifying Mitch's distinction of where potential wetlands might be located. And then the yellow line is indicating the 100 foot setback. You can tell at the 100 foot setback there is a lot of
development that has already been developed on the property. for public noticing. The application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on March 20th. 10 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as county departments and the DNR hydraologists. No written comments were received from
adjacent adjoining property owners during the written comment period. Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District provided a technical memo that explains the declining water quality trend on Double Track Lake primarily due to land use impacts and also raises awareness to the cyanobacteria blooms which have been occurring in recent
years. The memo includes data which is seen on that graph on the screen from water quality monitoring and emphasizes the importance of the shoreline vegetative buffers to protect the lake from the effects of development. Double Track Lake has evidence of degrading water quality of approximately 1.7 feet
per decade. For the most recent year of data integration of 2025, median water clarity was 5.3 ft lower than the watershed median. Cyanobacteria blooms, also known as blue green algae, have been occurring in the past several summers and have and they have never
been documented previously. The SWCD technical memo includes the following. The shore impact zone is the lakes's most sensitive zone where vegetation, soil stability, and runoff infiltration are critical to protecting water quality and long-term shoreline resilience. Granting this variance would
effectively authorize a permanent non-conforming structure within the setback area, allowing it to remain in place for generations on this property. Granting this variance would also effectively signal that development within the protected shore impact zone is acceptable, eroding the intent of the widely accepted setback standard in
Minnesota and setting a precedent that invites incremental encroachment on Cook County Lakes. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources area hydraologist hydraologists provided a technical memo outlining their review of the variance request relative to the practical difficulty standards. The DNR recommends
denial of the variance based on the following reasons. Number one, there are no unique circumstances of the property that created the property own created by the property owner. Unique circumstances are physical characteristics of the land such as lot shape, lot dimension, or buildable area that are rare compared to
other nearby Shorland properties. Personal matters unrelated to the property such as family needs, design preference, and financial considerations are not unique in circumstances. The property owner states that they built the structure closer to the lake due to the topography of the parcel. They stated the parcel contains wetlands and
lowlands that are not ideal build sites. The property is a 5acre lot that has a sufficient buildable area outside of the setback area. There are wetlands/lands located on the property but are mostly located near the shoreline within the shore impact zone and setback areas. The lot provides alternative locations for
building outside the setback area and shore impact zone. And the property owners also state the desire for the structures to enjoy surroundings without the intrusion of insects. These are personal reasons and not unique circumstances of the property. And also there is nothing that makes the property physically unique from other similar
shoreland properties or to justify the significant deviations from the standards when others must comply. Very few of the neighboring properties have structures within the setback area and shore impact zone which are likely non-conforming and not new structures. If this property is entitled to a variance, there's no reason why any other similar property would not be
entitled to a similar variance. Granting a variance therefore undermines the purpose of Shorland regulations. The second finding, the property owner does not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner given the purpose of the ordinary high water level setback requirements. The DNR notes this criterion is about
what is reasonable given the purpose of the ordinance, not what is reasonable to the property owner. Variance request should be the minimum necessary to achieve the purposes of the ordinance. The purpose of the ordinary high water level setback standard is to keep land alterations and vegetation removal at a safe distance from the water
to protect water quality habitat and visual character. Building structures close to the water increases erosion and the amount of sediment laden nutrients flowing into surface waters increasing algae growth. Building structures in the shore impact zone also removes nearshore vegetation, providing valuable habitat
for song birds, waterfell, amphibians, and other animals that live in and near the shore, as well as affecting lakeshore character. The shore impact zone also assists with erosion control, enhancing visual quality and privacy, and provides a buffer area that facilitates filtering pollutants and sediment from overland runoff,
subsequently protecting water quality of the lake. The applicant has not demonstrated why it is necessary to build so close to the shore. A significant deviation from the regulations when they have other alternatives that do not require variance that would be reasonable and still serve the purpose of the ordinance. Again, the variance is being
driven by personal preference. And then the DNR also has a note that says the variance will alter the essential character of the area. Essential character is about how the resulting structure improvement or land water disturbance will alter hydrarology, nutrient flow into waters, soil stability, vegetation habitat,
shoreline character, or be out of scale with the capacity of the land and water resource to tolerate the impacts. The structure has removed nearshore vegetation and replaced it with a substantial amount of imperous surface close to the shore. The structure is also very visible due to the closeness of the shore. Removing the vegetation
also eliminates the natural infilt infiltration and treatment of runoff from existing house. House to law lake lawns contribute seven to nine times more phosphorus per summer compared to a lot with natural shoreline contributing to the growth of algae decrease and
decrease in dissolved oxygen. Removing the lakes's natural buffers will further increase the flow of nutrients along with the warming waters and accelerate algae growth. First off, consideration of facts and findings. Um, there's certain standards the board
of adjustment needs to use to review each variance request. And I've put together some draft findings for you relative to the information pro provided in this narrative already. Um, I won't read through every single one of these because I've gone through a lot of this information already. Um, but I think
I'll kind of hit the high points for each item. So number one, 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. It's noted that this structure is requesting a
relief for 25 foot setback from Double Track Lake and Cook County zoning ordinance does not permit water oriented accessory structures on inland lakes. And I've identified a few different items from the Cook County land use guide plan as guiding features. Number two, the proposed use of the
property is allowed in the land use district in which the property is located. The parcel zone lakes shore residential includes 5.36 acres with approximately 426 ft of double track lake shoreline. Water oriented accessory structures are not a permitted use in the Cook County zoning ordinance.
Number three, the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Cook County zoning ordinance. The 240 foot structure was placed recently without permits in a location within the shore impact zone and shoreline setback area that
administratively does not allow structure placement in Cook County. Staff findings staff concur with the DNR findings as follows which is supported in the soil and water conservation district technical memo regarding declining water quality and trends. I did just read this section so I'm not
going to reread it but it's included on page 16 of the packet. Next variance finding the property owner has established that the practical difficulty is involved is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The application does not include technical information supporting the variance
request such as a wetlands delineation to support a finding that there are unique circumstances present on the property without a formal wetlands delineation confirming boundaries. It is established that practical difficulties exist due due to unique property circumstances. Slope and topography on
site are not limiting building sites and the property has significant building area due to its relatively large size. For a staff finding staff concur with the DNR findings which are included on your packet on page 16 and it's also supported by the Cook
County but wetland specialist approving the variance maintain the essential character of the locality. Cook County Shorland regulations intentionally do not permit water oriented accessory structures to protect the high water quality and aesthetics of Cook County, thereby making them relatively uncommon. Water oriented
accessory structures are not a permitted use in Cook County and only legally exist as grandfathered legal non-conformities or through a Cook County or Board of Adjustment approval with documented practical difficulties. staff findings. Staff concur with the DNR findings which is also supported in the soil water conservation district
technical memo regarding declining water quality trends. And lastly, the property owners established the practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone. There would be presumably a cost to removing or relocating the structure. That cannot be the only reason for granting the
variance. The property owner has not provided technical information supporting wetlands or the practical difficulty requiring the variance relief. Staff recommendations for consideration. General findings. Staff concurs with the DNR that the facts of this case do not
demonstrate sufficient practical difficulty to justify granting the variance. No permits were issued for this structure. Had the land owner consulted with the land services department, they would have been informed that the project was not permitted with permittable without a variance and Cook County does not apply
different variance standards for after the- fact request. The board should evaluate this case using the standard variance criteria outlined in the Cook County zoning ordinance. Purpose of the structure and alternatives. The variance application states that the structures purpose was to seasonally enjoy the lake in a bug-free space. Alternatives exist
to achieve this purpose without violating shoreland regulations. The applicant could have requested a variance to add a screen porch onto the existing deck outside of the shore impact zone. Alternatively, there are pop-up portable screen tents which can temporarily be placed to provide this space as well. There are alternative
building sites on the property that meet required setbacks. Assessment of practical difficulty. It may be true that the 100 foot lake setback line there are limited options to place the structure to view the lake. However, that is partially due to the existing development on the property which is not
a practical difficulty. Property owners cannot create their own practical difficulty. Therefore, the existing development pattern on the property cannot be used as a justification for the variance. The applicant has not provided technical information supporting the claim that wetlands prevent alternative placement of the structure. There's minimal vegetative
screening resulting in high visibility of the structure from the lake. And lastly, variance criteria. The board must determine that the var that the request meets all required standards for approval. Failure to meet any one variance criteria must result in denial
of the request per section 14.02D1F. It shall be the burden of the appellant to demonstrate sufficient practical difficulty sustain the need for the variance absent a showing as provided in the Minnesota state statutes and this ordinance. The board of adjustment shall not approve any variance. If the board
identifies findings that support approving the variance request, staff recommend that those findings be clearly documented and that the board consider applying conditions addressing the issues identified in the SWCD and DNR comment letters. >> All right. Thank you very much. Uh is
the applicant here and would they like to speak? >> Up and state your name and address, please. >> My name is Ross Stagerberg. Uh 966 Deltra Road is the property property owner. Um yeah, I guess I would I would
just like to address the board. Uh it sounds like, you know, some of the biggest issues and concerns obviously is the um uh water going into the lake. Um and uh the the building itself is
sitting on pee gravel. So it's a bed of pee gravel. So any water that would be coming down the property heading towards the lake would have to mitigate through that pearavevel that the that the shed is sitting on currently which I think would provide a great filter before it
hits the lake. Um our property is uh unique probably can't see it from here but we do have like a berm before we get to the water's edge. So that would uh that would as well stop the impeding flow of water before it goes directly
into the lake. Um uh they on page six um I don't Can you put that page six back up maybe? >> Just for >> just tell me when to stop. >> Yep. Right there. Oh >> this one.
>> Yeah, that one. So as Nea was talking earlier, you can see the green section is a wet land, you know, so there is a pond in there and that is a wet land. So you can see that most of our lake shore is surrounded by that wetland. So one would one would
argue that we have a very natural uh built-in boundary for uh water that is being shut off the property heading towards the lake. that is uh 83 acres uh in size of that green area. And we have
existing lowland that would probably go up to that second purple line. Um so that is uh in the in the spring uh during the snow melt season and during heavy rains, we also get that area that
um holds and contains water in in there as well uh keeping it from running into the lake as well. So, so I think uh being stewards uh of the lake itself um the property um is set up
very nice nicely uh to impede any uh runoff going directly into the lake. It it would be being filtered before it gets there. Um, I think that's all I got unless you got questions for me.
>> All right. Well, we might, but um, any other members of the comment or public wish to comment on this application? Russ Ros Russ and I have taught and if it would help the situation um Michelle Sterurn um
that three three4s of the the building is surrounded by trees and we got the wetland on the one side of it. So, we got a fourth of it that is lakeside, but we also have that burn.
But then we said, well, what happens if we put shrubs or hostas or flowers to help with that filtration? Um, so to help the flow of the stop the water flow, the bad water going into the lake. Suggestion on our part. Gladly, we would
gladly do that trying to prevent polluting in the lake. Just wanted to throw that in there. >> Great. Thank you. >> Uh any other comments? We'll close public comment then and
discuss as the board of adjustment. >> Jeff, you want to kick us off? >> I don't want to kick us off. >> Okay. Um well actually it was interesting to see that graph of water clarity for Devil Track Lake which is like a
30% decline in water clarity over the last 25 years which is actually worse than that if you dig into the data and I won't get to that into that I did that for 40 years I don't need to do it again but um but I think the other part is why water quality is concerned there's also
a whole issue of um visual impact and direct direct shoreline impacts that that get addressed with this shoreline setback to to keep to keep reduce those as well as the water quality and habitat
issues. So, um you know, I I read the DNR letter several times and went through this packet again and I don't disagree with anything in the DNR letter to be honest. Um my biggest thing is reading the soil
and water um tech memo stating that granting this variance would effectively authorize a permanent non-conforming structure within the setback area and granting this variance would also effectively signal that development within the protected shore impact zone is acceptable. Um I fully agree with
that. Um 25 ft is extremely close. It's a fourth of the setback and I I feel it would open a floodgate on Devil's Track by allowing this one to stay. I I do realize there are lots of other ones up
there that are older. Um but I'm going to agree with the tech in this one. She >> Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I mean I think that we're so
firmly in the shore impact zone makes it pretty clear. I think this isn't a case of really assessing if if it's a moderate enough incursion or you know looking at other setbacks around that we're so firmly in the shore impact zone
where structures are not allowed I think makes it pretty clearcut for me. Um that's where I'm at and and I would echo agreement with the SWCD and DNR. I think they're pretty strongly worded, right? Um having seen a fair amount of those. >> Yeah.
>> Is it still uh permits after it's 200 160 square feet? Is that what it is? Anything over 160 ft like woodshed, anything. Right. >> So, Cook County has an allowance that says accessory structures less than 160
square feet do not require a permit provided they meet all setbacks. Right. and it does not apply to any type of accessory structure that would have any kind of living quarters in it. So between the living quarters and the setbacks, people kind of get into trouble with that requirement from time
to time. And I'll also mention our soil and water conservation district technician Max Tosinson is here if you had specific questions about the water quality and the technical memo that they provided. >> Um I think you know Mr. When we look at our
practical difficulties criteria for variances, I I don't see a practical difficulty with this property um that would would say this structure could be given a variance. >> Mhm.
I did have one question. Um, I would generally agree with that, but I did want to ask the applicant, looking at the wetland map that you had uh us pull up again, there's a little blue blob. Uh, if you sort of took that shed straight back and it got out of the 100
foot setback, there's a little blue blob. What is that exactly? >> That's a septic. >> Okay. >> I think there's a shed there, though. Um, okay. >> The the existing structures >> are what Mitch Travis put in there. And when I was on site, there's like a little
>> um >> like a Rubbermaid sort of >> shed >> shed. Gotcha. >> You can see it in figure three. >> Yep. >> So that starting right there is where the lowland starts. If you if you to look at a picture of that shed
um with the topography there, that's that's where we start our lowlands. We don't have we don't have a uh necessarily a wetland there, but it's definitely a a low land.
>> They had dug out at when they did in the original Cook County Airport. That's where they had >> So there's that shed that you're saying is blue. >> Go down a couple feet easily from that shed >> veering off to our property. >> Okay. Yep. Thank you for the
clarification. Um, any other discussion? If not, I'd entertain a motion. >> I would make a motion to deny. >> I'd second that. >> And then do we need to document our
>> Yeah, we'll go through findings of facts >> accordingly if we do deny there. Um, >> do we do that before or after? Typically >> before the motion pass before passes. So any discussion >> motion? Yeah, that's that's part of our
discussion. So motion, a second to deny it. We'll go through the findings of fact. Um first, 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 mean, here I'd say no. That to my to my point that you know, the shore impact zone is pretty strictly prohibited in the zoning ordinance. And to reiterate, a no on any of these uh is a denial of the variance. >> Yes. >> Number two, the proposed use of the
property is allowed in the land use district in which the property is located. >> Again, no, for the same reason. >> It's allowed if it meets our setback requirements. >> Right. >> Mr. Trey, >> as you're going through these findings, are you also adopting the findings that are included in the staff narrative or
should I only rely on what you're verbally speaking? >> Um, I guess we can discuss that as a as a board. We should clarify that I I'm comfortable with all of the uh items in the first one >> if everyone else is >> with staff findings. >> Staff findings. Yeah.
>> With as supporting. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Uh number three, the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Cook County Zoning Ordinance. Uh
just reviewing everything written here. Is >> that a no because it's not in the setback. Again, I think the setback >> cuts off a lot almost every single one of these. >> Yes, I I would concur with the findings of fact um there from staff as well.
Um that is administratively does not allow that structure to be placed in that location. Uh, number four, the property owner has established that the practical difficulty involved is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. >> That's a no.
>> I didn't say that's a no. Yeah, because there's a lot of property available. >> Yeah, right. >> There's no practical difficulty. >> Yep. Other other buildable sites. Um, approving the variance maintains the essential character of the locality.
um without having a a map of the whole lake. That's a difficult one to answer, but I don't know if it's Germaine at this point. >> Yep. I would generally I mean I agree with staff's findings, though I will make a note that there are a heck of a lot of
close structures on Devil Track, but I think we see that in that water quality data, and that's something we are trying to move away from um and not encourage. The property owner has established that the practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone.
>> No. >> Yeah. I would say that's not been established. Y >> I agree with Courtney. Yep. >> Right. Okay. So, with those findings of fact, uh we'll we'll vote. >> Real quick, uh for all of those, you want me to site the findings that are in
the staff narrative as I document the record on this case. Right. >> I'm comfortable with those. Yes. Yeah. in addition to our >> the and yeah the DNR letter and the >> soil and water. All right. Thank you very much. >> Comments. >> Yep. >> Cuz there's only two letters. Correct.
>> Yep. >> Yeah. There are no other public uh public comments written. >> All righty. Uh with those findings effect, we'll uh have a vote on it then. All those in favor of denying the variance I.
>> All those opposed? Seeing none, uh variance is denied. Might, Mr. Chair, might I ask a question of staff? >> You may. >> Um, is there a time frame with resolution of non-compliance?
>> We try to work with uh property owners when the if you heard the question, is there a time frame for resolution? Um, so when a variance is denied for a structure that has already been placed on a property, staff try to work with property owner to kind of set a reasonable time frame. Uh, we recognize
that sometimes the time of year uh can be a little difficult. Um, so we're not going to call you tomorrow and say remove the structure in 30 days. Um, but we do expect in this next building season that the structure be removed and have the property the building site
revitated. Um, so we try to work on a case- by case basis depending on the substantial nature of the structure. Um, and try to find a compromise that kind of makes a reasonable plan going forward. So, um, Andrew Beavers, our violation enforcement officer, would
take point on that to kind of work with the property owner and set forward a time frame that seems agreeable to you, uh, and yet is still meeting the intent of bringing the property into conformity. >> All right. Thank you for that uh clarification. We'll move on to our next
agenda item. 2026-6B Schmidtz. >> Neva. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Carl and Melanda Schmidtz uh have requested relief from the Cook County Zoning Ordinance Section 7.05 and 9.02 02 to allow relief from the ordinary
high water level of Popppler Lake classified recreational development to allow exterior expansions to the existing non-conforming residential dwelling at 59 Voyagers Point as follows to enclose the existing covered porch and as inside living space to expand the
existing foundation beneath the deck towards the lake. To add a screen porch with expanded roof line expand the existing lakeside deck toward the lake a foot and a half. and to replace and expand the front entry on the back side of the structure away from the lake. The applicant's property includes 4.15 acres
with approximately 318 ft of Popular Lake shoreline. The parcel zone lakes shore residential within the first 300 ft of the lake and F3 beyond 300 ft. Newly created lots within the LSR zone must be 60 or must be 1 acre in size and 150 ft wide at the structural setback
and Palpar Lake is classified as a recreational development lake. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Schmidtz, are requesting relief from the structure setback requirements of Popper Lake to make several modifications to the existing grandfathered legal non-conforming cabin.
So, it's enclosing the current covered porch to add interior living space, expanding the foundation toward the lake, adding a screen porch, adding the existing deck, adding to the existing deck, and expanding the front entry. On this screen is from the applicant's uh application. Um, so you'll see the in
the top left corner that is the current covered porch. It is not screened. In my initial legal notice, I did describe a screen porch, but they made it very clear in their application that it's not screened. Um, this just has an overhang. Uh, so that would be converted into inside living space. Um, the foundation
that you see in in the picture on the top right, that's the view from the lake uh as proposed. So that foundation would be expanded toward the lake and then the addition of the deck uh and the screen and deck on the left hand side of that
structure. I'm not going to try to keep parsing that away. Let's go into zoning considerations. We'll talk more about the specific structure in a little bit. Um just a real quick word about legal non-conforming residential structures. Uh so residential structures like cabins
that are within the lake setback that were in place before the state septic or state shoreland rules were put in place are considered legal nonconformities sometimes called grandfathered structures. So I included in your pockets the highlighted language is from
Minnesota state statutes. I just want to recognize that these structures have the legal right to exist to be improved. uh even uh we allow them to be replaced as a one for one. Um they don't have a inherent right to expansion. So that is
where the variance process comes in. Anytime the exterior envelope of these structures is being modified. Uh in Cook County, we do have an allowance for deck additions onto these legal non-conforming residential structures. Uh which I did bolden. Uh we allow deck
additions to structures at non-conforming setbacks uh to be allowed provided the deck doesn't have any sidewalls, roof uh doesn't exceed 8 ft in depth and the closest point uh it's outside of the shore impact zone which we just previously discussed.
The uh pictures on the screen there, figure two, that's the view of the cabin uh where that foundation area would be proposed as well as the addition of that screen deck. The applicant did include uh really detailed architectural
drawings with details in them. So, if you've had time to look through the actual application materials, that's probably the best place to understand the nuance of some of those things. Um, figure three is showing you the first floor of the structure. So, what would be underneath the first floor would be the expansion of the foundation. Um, but
also on on floor one, uh, that's that addition of the interior living spa space, the hashed lines towards the lake. uh the addition of the deck towards the lake about a foot and a half, the new screen porch um and then the addition of the porch uh away from
the lake. For background, the current property owners purchased this property in June of 2025. The residential parcel has a cabin which assessor's records indicate has an actual build date of 1972 and effective build date of 1995 which tells us that you know needs a little TLC at
this point. Um this confirms the cabin has a legal non-conforming residential structure. The parcel is over 4 acres in size and has several accessory structures at this as well. Uh the cabin is located outside the shore impact zone per the site survey and cabin dimensional details provided in the
application and a desktop analysis supported this finding. The parcel is located along Voyagers Point Road, a deadend road that provides access to private properties on Popular Lake. The subject parcel abuts US Forest Service land on its western border.
for site conditions and considerations uh for septic. The Cook County Environmental Health Officer, Jesse Johnson, provided the following information regarding this request. After reviewing Carla Melanda's variance application, I found the property to have a new pressure mountain septic system that was installed in 2025 and
has received a certificate of compliance. No septic inspections are required on this property currently. The property must however remain in compliance with state and local septic regulations. If any bedrooms are added in the future, the septic system may need to increase in size and require a septic inspection. For impervious
surface coverage, the parcel meets the 25% imperous surface coverage requirements that apply in shorland areas. Wetlands are not an issue driving the need for the variance. Slope is not an issue driving the need for the variance. And for shoreline health, the existing shoreland vegetation includes mature forest. The application includes
photos of the shoreline in figure 7 for public noticing. The application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on March 20th, 2026. 12 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as the county departments and DNR hydraologists. Uh, as I mentioned before, just a quick note
on the legal notice. I did ex in initially incorrectly notify that the it was to enclose an existing screen porch. So the existing porch is not screened in. It is just covered. Um just just a note on that. The applicant did correctly identify within their own
application. Uh for public comments, we received uh four written comments, not three as written in your staff narrative as well. Um I missed a written comment that came in, so we added that and mailed that out
to you over the weekend. I believe you all received it from Mr. Matthew Rean. Um but all four comments were in support of the variance. Uh neighbors of the area recognized the history of the property and that it was an aging structure that needed um uh some
improvements and the current property owners are planning on turning this from a uh turning this into their permanent dwelling is my understanding. So these improvements will partially support um that type of use. The Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District provided
a technical memo that ina explains there is declining water quality trends on Popular Lake uh primarily due to land use impacts. The memo includes the following. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency reported Popular Lake has a long-term water quality data set and is one of the few lakes in Cook County
with a statistically significant decline in transparency. Since the late 80s, Popular Lake has seen a decline in water clarity of about 1 meter. This decline in water quality water clarity is caused by an increase in the amount of nutrients being supplied to the lake. Cook County lakes are very susceptible
to land use impacts that result in a larger nutrient footprint. When more nutrients are available in an aquatic ecosystems, utrofication results and more algae are produced. Utrofication is defined as the excessive richness of nutrients in a body of water which causes an increase in al increased
growth of plants and algae. The more algae that accumulate will lead to lower clarity value with secist. Every land use change leads to nutrient input without proper nutrient without proper nutrient conservation practices. New structures and modified improvements are highly encouraged by Cook SWC to reduce
their impact on the water body due to the declining condition of this water body. and the Minnesota DNR area hydraologist did not have comments related to this variance request for uh staff considerations and findings. Um I've provided some draft
findings relative uh to the variance criteria that we review every variance for. Uh the first one, 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. Uh the Cook County zoning ordinance requires a setback of 100 ft from recreation development lakes finding the existing structures located outside of the shore impact zone approximately 57 ft from the shoreline. Cook County zoning ordinance section 9.02 02 recognizes the right of
continuence for legal non-conforming residential structures which allow repair, replace, and improvements finding there's not an inherent right to expansion. The nature of the expansion request should be taken into consideration. The nature of these expansions are utilizing the existing footprint. Additionally, 9.02C allows
deck additions under specific conditions which appear to be met with this application. There's a Cook County land use guide plan general land use goal uh about residential development and redevelopment of lands is generally preferred over the development of undeveloped land. Uh there's a natural
features and environment concern goal um about evaluating impacts to natural resources and land use decisions. There's a residential goal that residential density uh should be considered in areas where there is existing development and services and a
land use plan administrative goal that all land use related decision 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. The proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use district in which the property is located. The applicant's
property includes 4.15 acres with approximately 318 ft of Popular Lake shoreline. The parcel is zone lake shore residential within the first 300 feet of the lake. FB3 beyond 300 feet. Residential uses are permitted in these zone districts and legal existing legal non-conformities are permitted to be
improved. The property owner is resp is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Cook County zoning ordinance. The variance request is reasonable for the improvements due to the specific areas of the expansion being largely within the existing footprint of the structure and deck
additions are allowed under specific circumstances to existing legal non-conforming structures per section 9.02C of the Cook County zoning ordinance. The property owner has established that the practical difficulty involved is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The practical difficulty cannot be created
by the property owner. The application cites the 1972 build date of the cabin during which time the shoreline regulations did not exist. Approving the variance maintain the essential care to locality. The area is zone lake shore residential consisting of conforming and non-conforming lots. The subject parcels
located at the end of a deadend road. Three adjacent property owners have expressed support actually four now uh citing it will harm the character locality and no opposition has been heard indicating there would be deterioration to the character locality. uh and economic considerations are not
seen as the single reason for the variance request for staff recommendation of consideration. Uh it's found that modest improvements to allow improvement modest improvements to allow improvements I guess to these types of structures have been allowed under strict conditions in Cook County.
Minnesota state statutes and the Cook County zoning ordinance regulations allow legal non-conformities to exist and to be improved, replaced, and repaired. There is not a right to expansion. However, Cook County has allowed modest expansions in cases where it improves the functionality and the
utilization of these structures. Staff find the applicants have balanced their request to minimize intrusion and expansion into the shoreline setback area while making targeted improvements to allow greater functionality to the dwelling to allow the transition to year-round use. If approved, the
following conditions may be attached to this variance request. Number one, the property shall conform to Minnesota rule 7080 in the Cook County septic requirements. Number two, where practicable a gutter or catchment system or vegetation conducive to water retention shall be included on all new or proposed structures to divert
precipitation and snow melt away from Popular Lake. Number three, a land use permit shall be required for the proposed improvements in accordance with the plans reviewed by the board of adjustment at their April 8th, 2026 meeting. And number four, the parcel shall maintain a wide and robust vegetated shoreline buffer with a small
access trail. Remove as little of the trees and vegetation as possible in the shoreland areas to prevent erosion and sediment loading into the lake via overland flow. Exceptions to this shall include best management practices in accordance with Firewise standards. >> All right. Thank you very much.
>> Can I ask a clarifying question? >> Do you have any information on the current setback of the house or the deck? Due to the snow, I did not pull tape between the existing deck. And that is
why in the packet, what I did do was try to check the box to verify we were outside of the short impact zone. >> Um, the application did not have a survey with it that had that dimension provided. Um, it did have a survey with it, but I I couldn't find a specific
setback from the lake specifically. >> Okay. >> But the estimate here I'm seeing is 57 and A2. >> Yep. >> It could be verified uh during the field season as a condition if if that's helpful. >> What was the estimate? >> 57.
>> Okay. That's what I thought I had seen. Okay. Yep. Okay. >> All right. Uh if the applicant is here and would like to add anything, step on up to the mic, state your name and address, please. >> Good afternoon, evening. Um, Carl Schmidt's 59 Voyagers Point. I I really
don't have much more to add to it, but if there are any questions that you guys have, we're happy to answer them for you. >> All right. Thanks. Uh, any other members of the public wish to comment on this application? >> I'm Melanda. The only thing I'll add is
we were trying to be mindful of the um staying in the footprint which was noted when um Neville went through the application. So just adding the one foot on the deck out front gives us room to actually walk around the building. So we
were trying to keep those considerations in mind when we were putting in place. And we have um we love the property and we already had planned to do more vegetation around the front. You can see in the in the foliage photo that I put, there's a lot of vegetation already out
there and we like being on the far end. Um, so we plan on planning more and doing some of the things that were suggested for us to help with the drainage from the addition of the screen porch. >> Thank you very much. Uh, any other
members of the public wish to comment? Seeing none, we'll close the comment period. discuss as a board. >> It didn't look like the It look like there was already a deck where you're putting the screen porch. So that it's basically a structure that's already
there. It's just not enclosed, right? >> And using the existing footings. >> Yep. So if you look at the photo on >> Yeah, that's what I thought. >> Um >> I'm just using the staff narrative, I guess. Figure two. So page 44 of 76 of the packet.
>> Mhm. Um that's the corner of the deck that on that left side of that that's a corner. So on the left side that's where the new screen porch would be added, >> right? >> And that A-frame that you see on the right side is where it would be a wall
would be added and that would become inside living space >> and that part of the deck would extend an extra foot and a half. >> Okay? >> And then that foundation underneath there would come towards the lake a little bit, right? the five five and whatever fee. >> Yeah.
>> Is there anything relating to screened versus covered? >> Not specifically. Um in fact, there's variances where the board has not allowed like there's a distinct it's a sliding slope if you think about it because it's one thing to say I have a deck and I
just want a cover on it for the rain and then all of a sudden it's like I want to I want to screen it. Okay, kind of still the same thing. bugs make sense, but now we want to turn it into inside living space and so and then all a sudden that inside living space is a larger footprint of you know so it's there's a
like a continuum and there's not like a bright line of so is covered porch equal to inside living space. It's all very philosophical. We've got nothing in our you know okay >> it's just kind of recognizing that continuum and so we try as staff to kind of honor those details in however they
might affect each case. differently. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, that was the only question I had. >> Okay. >> And I do not have any others >> over here. >> Oh, no. I I um
I appreciate the fact that it we're trying to stick within the existing footprint. Yep. >> And I would um like to compliment staff on the reworking of condition number two about gutters. >> I can now support that rather than just
blank >> blank uh charge whatever just gutters but gutters to move the water away from the lake >> is very good. Thank you. >> Yeah, I would concur. I think the modest nature of the expansion is the most
compelling part of this to me. Um, and redeveloping, you know, what has already been developed, recognizing that there's no, you know, if we were just using the existing footprint exactly, we wouldn't even necessarily be here. Um, but it's modest and it, you know, it's it's not
allowed by right, but I think it's in good faith effort um to minimize the impact around this cabin. Um, I would make a motion to approve with the conditions set in forth by staff. Uh, one, two,
three, and four. >> I'll second that. >> Do I need to say them? >> I'm curious about the findings. We should address the staff narrative first. >> And that was seceded by Lee. >> Mhm.
>> Okay. Mhm. >> And we can I mean I think when we're approving a variance we're generally a little bit more lenient on agreeing >> right >> with >> facts uh with staff's facts and findings if if that's the case. I'm comfortable with these. Um
>> yeah I think like I said I noted 2A on the first one especially modest expansion. Um, number four, redevelopment. >> Yeah, I'm comfortable with everything else. >> If other folks are. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, we have a motion and a
second. Uh, all those in favor approving the variance. >> I I All those opposed? >> Seeing none, uh, variance passes. Thank you very much. That's all our business. So I'd entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> I have a motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed. Meeting is adjourned. >> Will you all be here next month? >> What is next month? >> May. >> May. May.