Good afternoon. Let's call the board of adjustment to order. Um first order of business is to approve the agenda and the meeting minutes from the last meeting. >> I will move to approve the agenda and minutes as written.
>> Um can I ask a question of staff before I second? Um so this um lift whatever their name was >> vertical bridge >> vertical bridge withdrew at the county commissioners meeting then >> we did >> okay so basically whatever was approved
in the original conditional use permit and the variance request stay on this >> go >> everything that was previously approved by the planning commission >> the original >> yeah the original conditioning experiment stands Okay. >> Thank you. I just want I'll second the
motion to approve. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I the minutes are approved. Moving on to new business. Staff, would you uh please address the first >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first item of
business is a variance request submitted by Aried. It's a variance request for relief from the Cook County Zoning Ordinance Section 7.05 05 to allow the plment of the existing shed with modifications including a shed roof and deck and to be no closer than 66 feet from the ordinary high water level of
Cascade Lake, a natural environment lake where a minimum of 150 ft setback applies at 1833 the grade. The applicant's property includes 62.21 acres with approximately 2,886 feet of Cascade Lake shoreline. The parcel is
zoned lakes shore residential within the first 300 feet of Cascade Lake and F2 further inland. Newly created lots within the LSR zone district much and on a natural environment lake must be 2 acres in size and 200 ft wide of the structural setback. And as previously
mentioned, Cascade Lake is classified as a natural environment lake. The applicant Aruad is requesting relief from the shoreline setback requirements of Cascade Lake to replace and expand the shed on the property at 1833 the grade. the structure requests to encroach further into the lake setback
with the addition of the deck. We included a citation to section 7.05 which outlines the structure setback requirements on the natural environment lake. For background, the property currently has a cabin and outhouse and is the only
private property on Cascade Lake. Historically, this area has served as a hub for logging in the 1920s and 1930s. The house was granted a variance from the Cook County Board of Adjustment on December 14th, 2022 to allow tear down rebuild of the primary dwelling with an
expansion and increased length, width, and height. The board approved the variance request with the following conditions. Um, I'll put a picture of There we go. Ah, there we go. Um, the property shall conform Minnesota rule 780 and Cook County septic ordinance
requirements. The vegetation planting plan shall be submitted demonstrating a 20- foot wide vegetative buffer with native plants and shrubs. The 20 foot vegetated buffer shall be maintained and established by the current and future property owners to filter runoff and mitigate impacts of the development. A gutter or cachment system for water
retention shall be included on all new and proposed structures to divert precipitation and snow melt away from Cascade Lake. The structure shall not exceed it 33 feet in height and no component of the proposed construction may be closer than 45 ft from the ordinary high water level of Cascade Lake. Uh, as you can see in the photo, the
structure was getting built last year. And then next to the structure is a shed. And then these are the photos that are in your packet on page three of the staff report. And then because I didn't organize my slides very well, we're going to go back
real quick um just for project details. So here's that shed roof. And then uh essentially the the front of this replacement shed would be at the same setback as the lake is just adding the deck. in the deck would be what's encroaching further into the lake setback. And then there's kind of the artistic
rendering of the new shed matching the style of the existing home. Caught up to myself now. And there's the aerial photo that shows the house being removed last year before the new construction began. And you can see the shed on there.
For site conditions and consideration, a new septic system has been installed to serve the dwelling, which I should correct myself. I believe the outhouse has probably been removed. Yes, sorry about that. Right. >> Um, impervious surface coverage. There's no issues with impervious surface coverage. It's very large lot size. Um, the practical difficulty uh was
identified with the 2022 house uh variance was mostly wetlands. There's a lot of wetlands in this location. It's a very flat uh lot very high up in the watershed there. Um so this is kind of the applicant's rendering of the site conditions. This
is not the whole 62 acres. This is just the uplose area of where the development is on the lot. So there's kind of wetlands behind the house and that was a part of the board's review in the first variance for the house uh to allow that tear down rebuild.
All right. Um for public noticing the application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on February 20th. 24 letters were notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as county departments and the DNR hydraologist. Written comments were received from adjoining property owners uh Linda and
David Griggs who supported the variance request. I've included draft uh facts and findings for the request. Um just a quick note on that 66 foot setback in Casc Cascade Lake. That's the number um
the applicant and I arrived at using desktop information based off of aerial photography. We wanted to build in a comfort uh level. I I don't believe it's going to be as close as 66 ft. Uh however, with snow cover and the vegetation on Cascade Lake, which is
super shrubby, uh it just is very difficult this time of year to get exact measurements and we did not want a circumstance where um a land use specialist gets out after a variance approval and finds that that distance isn't available. So um that that's how we arrived at that number um in
coordination with one another in the processing of the application. Uh so that's the number that's cited in the facts and findings under number one uh 66 foot relief from uh Cascade Lake. I've included additional findings that I hope you've had a chance to review. I'm going to save us the effort of going
through each of those. Um, I do think it's notable to note that wetlands are one of the primary reasons uh for the variance request that was approved for the house and I think that's still a consistent landscape characteristic that would apply to this request as well. Um, and this is the only privately owned
property with Cascade Lake water frontage which is a unique um aspect of it. Um, for staff recommendation and consideration due to winter conditions, land service staff were unable to verify the setback distance on the field during processing of the variance application. In addition, on-site review of vegetation type is required to determine
the appropriate starting point for the shoreline measurement. The proposal has instead been evaluated using available desktop data. To address these limitations, staff have recommended the appro approved setback distance be verified on site prior to the start of construction of the new shed. A safety factor has been added to the requested
setback relief to provide flexibility for staff during on-site review. There's three potential conditions of approval. Number one, prior to construction, land services staff shall verify the proposed shed location meets the approved 66 ft setback from the ordinary high water level or shoreline where terrestrial
vegetation begins. Number two, the structure is approved solely as an accessory storage building. Any intensification of use, including but not limited to the use as a bunk house or a guest cabin, shall require an amendment to this variance approval. No sleeping quarter shall be permitted within the structure. And number three,
the land use permit shall authorize the structure dimensions and use proposed in the bearings application approved by the board of adjustment on March 11th, 2026. That's Mr. Chair, >> the applicants are present. >> Yes. >> Is there some things you would like to add?
>> Um, no. I think uh the Neva's description is fairly complete. Uh it's been a journey, you know, three years since we uh I think uh got our first variance and we just spent our first night in the new cabin uh this past
Sunday. So, it felt felt good and it's a special place out there. And um I think we I always knew I wanted to tackle a shed replacement because it's sagging roof and it's you know it's vintage 1920
and uh not really salvageable too much in its current state. So uh uh but I couldn't contemplate it in the first goound if the house was enough to handle. So, now we're sort of doing this uh one more upgrade and uh um neat place
to store all our kayaks and canoes and yard furniture, stuff like that closer to the house. That's what we're looking for. >> Okay. All right. Anything else? No, >> I don't think so. >> Thank you. Any public comment on this that we need to consider?
Seeing none, we'll close public comment and board. Um, I have seen the site. I occasionally fish Cascade Lake, so I've seen the site from the lake. Um, basically, we're just replacing it in
place. Correct. With a little bit of extra space for front deck. >> Right. The front of the shed will be at the same location as the current shed. It's just the addition of the deck that would go closer to the lake. >> Okay. >> Um yeah, I mean the replacement doesn't
really impact the existing shoreline condition. So that seems pretty reasonable. >> Yeah. Site improvement too with a >> Yeah. manure building. That's >> similar in style to the the cabin. Um Oh, >> yeah. I would I would concur with both
of those things and the fact that a lot of the leg work was done establishing the variance for the house or for the cabin I think helps us out on this one. It's pretty simple, straightforward >> and I'm comfortable with the findings of fact >> and I'd ask both you know you so having
dealt with and I'm glad you use aerial photography by the way on your 66 calculation because the uh the plotting this far up on the planet with when you start using GIS systems can get a little little wonky.
So that's the only concern I had was the 66 feet, but you informing me that both of you agreed that together that that's you're you're real comfortable with that. >> Oh, yeah. I mean, I think I I did measure uh before the snow flew back in
December or something. >> Okay. >> And I think it's currently probably closer to 80 feet depending on where you go to. >> I made him cut it down a lot because >> just to be safe to not come back. We we have no intention of moving any closer. >> That wasn't my thought. My thought was
more along the lines if if >> it's more of the restriction we put on the land use office >> or we say 66 feet and they're not measuring 64 feet and then then all kinds of things start moving with you're leaving the footprint and going back two more feet or coming back to the board or
you know and it just um >> it's one that I saw would be a bit of a you're you're constrained already with the wetlands, the shoreline, the lake, the offsets that's there that so forth that are that are there didn't want to
set up conditions that cause a bunch of consternation but you know you've measured it staff's measured it I'm I'm not here to second guess what you've done out there in the field or what your personal experience is I just wanted to make sure that was comfortable with that one
>> to the best of our ability during winter time and again it's not a shoreline that's a very clean shoreline measurement with kind of like that alder type swampy sideline So, um, I think this will give us a lot of room to work with. >> I personally was not going to do a site
visit because I had to drive out there Monday and pick up my neighbor who went into the ditch and the road is pretty ice covered. So, it's um so um any further discussion board? Do we have a motion?
>> Move to approve with the findings of fact as written and uh conditions as written as well. Okay. Any further discussion? >> I'll second that. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I
>> unanimous that. Thank you folks. >> You >> Thank you. >> Quicker than three years on the shed. How about that? >> All right. Our next applicants, Mr. chair um were planning on joining us in person, but they had a family emergency
that required them to turn around on the road, and I told them I would try to give them a call from our speaker line here. So, if you give me a second, I'll try to get them patched in. >> Thank you. >> Yes.
Hello. Hi Bob and Judy. This is Neva Maxwell. I'm calling you from our board of adjustment meeting. Can you hear me? Okay, >> just fine. Yeah, >> great. So, uh, we're just about to begin your public hearing. You'll hear the chair open up your meeting and I will read through the staff report and then
there'll be your opportunity to add to that and then um I'll probably turn you quiet in between so we don't get the the noise from your car. Does that sound good? >> Yep. >> All right. Thank you. All right. >> All right. Go ahead and we can start
with the next package for Robert and Judith. Um, and their request for variance on the the road county 14. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a variance request submitted by Robert and Judith Jones. The request is for relief from
sections 4.07 C4 and 7.05 05 to allow an accessory structure, a 32x 32 garage to be placed 66 ft from the center line of County Road 14 where a minimum of 85 ft is required and 53 ft from a tributary river segment where a setback of 100 ft
is required at 234 County Road 14. The applicants Oh, forgot my multitasking. There we go. Sorry, guys. Um, the applicant's property includes 35.46 acres with approximately 800 ft of river shoreline. The parcel is contained entirely within the F3 zone district.
Newly created lots within the F3 zone must be five acres in size and 200 feet wide at the structure setback. The river is a designated public waters and classified as a tributary river segment. Robert and Judith Jones are requesting variance relief from the county road and river setback to allow the for the placement of a garage. The existing
development on the 35 acre parcel is located on the southwest corner of the lot with the river located to the east and north of the house. the uh in in your pockets, you've got the ordinance citation from the county road set box for the F3 zone district as well as a
tributary river segment. On the screen is the um aerial photo of the 35 acre parcel. You can see that the house is in the clearing of the woods um right between the road and the river segment. For background, the property
currently has a house, garage, shed, and septic system. In figure one shown on the screen, the development is located between the road and river in the southwest corner. A review of the public waters inventory map explains that when the house and garage uh were permitted
in 1992 and 1999, respectively, the public waters were not shown on the east side of County Road 14. Um hopefully that will make sense there. And then when the PWI public waters inventory maps were updated in 2011, then they did show that the public water course was
crossing onto the east side of County Road 14 in this location. So what's on the screen right now are the maps that are on page four of the staff report. Uh the black and white grainy footage is the original public waters inventory
map. And I try to do a little red arrow. Essentially, there's a little nudge in the river there that's slightly consistent between all three versions of these maps. Um, and that was located on the west side of County Road 14 when the land owners would have done the 1990s
land use permits. So, the zoning office would have not seen a public water course on the east side of County Road 14. Then in 2011 when the public waters inventory maps were updated then the public water course does cross uh county road 14 and all of a sudden is that and
to the benefit of the land owners um the land owner in the 1990s did acknowledge that there was a creek um and I included a part of that um in your staff reports that's what figure two is is the drawing from the 1990s permits where the landowner did identify the creek in
there. So, everyone trying to do their best, but just maps get better with time. Um, so I'm happy to answer any questions about that. Hopefully that story line makes sense. Um, here's a photo of the assessor's photos of the current house and garage on the
property. And for site conditions and considerations, the property is served by a septic system. Impervious surface coverage uh requirements are met. Um, wetlands are not the primary issue driving the need for the variance. And this stream is a creek is a tributary to
Kimble Creek and is was incorrectly depicted in the original county public waters inventory maps from the DNR for public noticing. The application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on February 20th, 2026. 14 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as county departments and the DNR
hydraologist. No written comments were received from adjoining property owners during the written comment period for staff considerations for facts and findings. I'll go through these. So the variance being consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and other county official controls. Uh the county zoning ordinance requires a 100 foot setback from tributary river segment. The applicant is proposing a 53 foot setback from the public water course. The public water course was not accurately identified in the original
public waters inventory map for Cook County. The county zoning ordinance requires an 85 foot setback for structures from the county road and F3 zone district. The applicants requesting a 66 foot back uh 66T setback. The county highway department has not indicated any issues with this request.
I've also included several uh residential goals and an administrative goals and environmental goals outlined in our uh guide plan. The next question, the proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use district in which the property is located. The property is zoned F3 and is conforming
with over 35 acres of land. Residential uses are permitted in the zone district. The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Cook County zoning ordinance. The property owner does propose to use the property in a reasonable manner given the setback relief is requesting to balance the setback requirements of the road from
the west and the creek to the east. The addition of the garage is a reasonable request. 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 is that the error with the DNR's original public waters
inventory which did not accurately depict this creek as a public water course on the east side of County Road 14. Although the previous property owner did identify the creek on their permits, the creek was identified on the east side of County Road 14 in the updated 2011 public waters inventory maps. Approving the variance maintain the
essential character of the locality. The addition of the garage will not alter the essential character of the locality and is balancing setback relief needed by both the road and the creek to balance the needs of the public safety and shoreline stewardship. And the public or the property owner has established that the practical difficulty involves more than economic
considerations alone. Economic considerations are not found to be the reason for the variance request. Staff recommendation for consideration. Due to winter conditions, land services staff were unable to verify the setback distances in the field during the processing of this variance application. In addition, on-site review of
vegetation type is required to determine the appropriate starting point for the shoreline measurement. The proposal has instead been evaluated using available desktop data and communication with the property owner. To address these limitations, staff recommend that the approved setback distance be verified on site prior to the start of construction
of the new garage. If approved, the following conditions may be attached to the variance request. Number one, prior to construction, land services staff shall verify the proposed garage location meets the approved 66t setback from center line of county road 14 and 53 ft setback from the ordinary high
water level or the shoreline where terrestrial vegetation begins. The structure is approved solely as an accessory storage building. any intensification of use, including but not limited to use as a bunk house or guest cabin shall require an amendment to this variance approval. No sleeping quarters shall be permitted within the
structure. Number three, the lane use permit shall authorize a structure of the dimensions and use proposed in the variance application and approved by the board of adjustment on March 11th, 2026. That's all I have, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Um, so they're on the phone. So,
>> yep, Mr. and Mrs. Jones are on the phone. Can you hear me? >> Can you hear the chair, Mr. and Mrs. Jones? >> Yes. >> So, we've heard from staff um in the various requests. Is there anything
you'd like to add as the applicants? >> We're not hearing very well. >> We're not hearing that very well. >> Okay. Uh the chair is wondering if there's anything you would like to add as the applicants. I I think you covered it real well. >> All right. Thank you very much. I'll let
you know if if you're called on again with any questions. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And we'll try we'll try to speak up for you, too. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Now we're open to public comment. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to make comment?
No. All right. Seeing none, I will close for public comment and discuss amongst the board. Um, anybody get a chance to go take a look? >> I still have mud on my vehicle from it when I got out there before the snowstorm. So, um, I looking at the
site, I don't really don't have any issues with the setback from the county road. Um, I mean, the sight lines on that section of 14 are pretty good. It's pretty straight. Um, it is a kind of a strange property with all the watershed
divides that with these fingers that stick out. So, they're kind of limited as to where they go as far as I could see. Um, I don't I didn't have any real big issues with it. I mean, between the garage site and the and the water
course, it's pretty heavily wooded and uh it's not a huge structure. So, I don't know if we're going to have >> pretty standard size related to that. >> Um, okay. So, you were comfortable with the vegetation between that and the the
stream. >> Yeah. I mean, I didn't get out and walk down the slope or anything, but yeah, >> your observations count. >> Yeah, it's pretty heavily wooded and pretty untouched really, >> right? Um, >> yeah, no concerns. I think um it's it's
always easy when the practical difficulty is a mapping error that makes it a little easier to uh take the pressure off the owner, >> right? >> Yep. >> Okay. Um do I have a motion?
>> I would move to approve with um staff recommendations and conditions set forth. >> You have a second. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? I >> unanimous.
>> Your variance has been approved with the conditions and findings listed in the staff report and I'll I'll reach out to you guys within the next week. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> You bet. Have a nice day. Safe travels. >> Thank you. Bye. >> Bye.
>> Bye. >> Have a motion to adjurnn. Some >> moved. Second. All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. >> So Diane, how do we turn these off? >> Just put just hold the button and it
should