uh call our Board of adjustment for the 12th of February 12th of March 2025 I'm reading all minutes um to order and start with uh approving the agenda and the minutes from last month
Mr chair I have some possible corrections to the minutes um under new business it says that you were elected as the chair of the Planning Commission I think the minutes should stay Board of
adjustment and also for Brad being Vice chair just a simple thing and with that I would approve to approve the minutes with those changes and the agenda and the agenda yes we got a a motion for
approval do we have a second a second U all in favor I I I all right we will start with uh devil track cabins LLC uh file number
2025 1V Nea thank you Mr chair this is a variance request for after the fact relief from C County zoning ordinance for the following on a substandard lot of record item a the bird's nest deck at a reduced ordinary high water level short Shor line setback of 55 ft and
Item B the fox den deck at a reduced ordinary high water level Shoreline setback of 35 ft within the shore Impact Zone and at a reduced sidey yard setback of 40 ft where a minimum sidey yard setback of 50 ft is required in the resort commercial residential Zone District on double track Lake where a
minimum structure setback of 100 ft is required located at 18 Romans road the property is 1.31 Acres with approximately 2011 ft of Devil's track Lake Shoreline the property is
entirely within the resort commercial residential Zone District newly created Lots within this Zone District must be 5 acres in size and 300 ft wide uh with water Frontage so this makes this a substandard lot of record and the Shoreland classification is recreational
development Mr kintop is requesting after the fact variance relief for two decks added on to two rental cabins at his Resort double track Lake cabin the decks were added by the contractor last year without permits and are both within the shoreline setback of double track Lake the fox St cabin is also
within the 10 ft of the sidey setback because the parcel is a substandard legal lot of record meaning that it's smaller than the Zone District standard requirements variance relief is also required to allow the development on the substandard lot as
well bird's nest cabin is a 520t cabin the 150t deck is partially constructed approximately 55 ft from the shoreline on page six of the board of adjustment packets are photos showing the deck um
as currently in its form um relative to the Shoreline and then also relative to the cabin itself and then there's also Foxon cabin which is a completed deck and 440t cabin and a 100 sqare foot deck
completed approximately 35 ft from the shoreline within the short Impact Zone and 40 feet from the sidey yard line and on page seven of your packet are the photos of that deck I included the ordinance citations here there's again kind of three
different sections of ordinances that trigger the variance relief uh so the first is the actual standards for the Zone District as I mentioned because this lot was created prior to Zone District standards um it's a legal lot of record it gets to exist um and that's
where you have the 50ft sidey yard setback in the RCR if this was a normal Lakeshore residentially zoned lot it would have been a 10-ft sidey yard setback so it's just a a quirky thing in this area um the second type of variance relief that's needed is again the lake
setback so again we're looking at 55 ft and 35 ft from the lake setback for the two decks one of which is in that short Impact Zone and I provided a little visual in the packets of what the shore Impact Zone area is and then that third part is a
language from article 9 of the co County zoning ordinance these non-conforming lot uh regulations come from State Shoreland standards so the state outlines how we as the county regulate and handle these smaller lots and when
variances are required so because uh the building site isn't meeting setback distances it also needs a variance from the that part of things so for background um double track Lake cabin is the order
former site of BG's Resort a Historic Resort dating back to the 1920s in 1992 part of the resort was converted into Residential Properties which created the double track Acres plat while the remaining resort property became Double's track Lake cabins the property
currently includes five cabins over the years a parcel has received several variances in 1990 there was a variance granted for the addition of cabin five which was a shoreline setback relief in 1993 the variance was approved for modifications of Cabin Six also Shoreline setback relief and in 2021 and
after the fact variance was required for the new construction within the sidey setback on what was identified as owner residents the two cabins originally had smaller stair and landings attached which were removed and replaced with larger decks the county assessor information shows in figure six of the
packet so that's on page 11 um that the decks were 20 to 30 squ ft in size for each cabin the property owner became aware that the decks were constructed last year that were unpermitted only after the passing of their contractor the applicants explain in the variance
application that their contractor did not make them aware of the permanent variance requirements in uh I included the assessors diagrams there and I also did a shoreline stepback averaging so this is a tool that we have in the Cook County zoning ordinance to kind of
Benchmark what a reasonable Shoreline setac variance would be so it's a calculation where you take the joining properties within a certain search area and then you look at what the principal residences are from the shoreline from
them um and with that the shoreline setback averaging calculation did not support a variance uh to be this close all of the principal dwellings that I measured from from the shoreline in this stretch of the lake were at least 80 ft or more from the
shoreline uh for site conditions and considerations the property is served by a septic system with a new compliance inspection being issued in 2021 that's valid for 10 years impervious surface coverage requirements are met wetlands are not an issue the slope is relatively
flat uh for Shoreline Health given the time of year it is it's pretty hard to see the vegetation along the shoreline at at this site at the moment in time um I did include a figure in your packets that I could find from the assessor files that shows kind of the main Landing that's like the dock Recreation
Area so it's not really a a probably Fair Viewpoint of what the shoreline is so I'll just say that I can't quite tell right now so when we did our public noticing uh we noticed it in the newspaper as well as sent out 12 letters of notification to adjacent Property Owners as well as County departments and
a DNR hydrologist we received a letter uh back from the neighbors Jerry Wilson and Marie Maran um they wrote a letter in support of the request and the Cook County Environmental Health officer Mitch ion provided a memo that indicated
the septic was in compliance Cook County Soil and Water provided technical memo that explains the declining water quality trend of Devil's track Lake that's primarily due to land use impacts the memo includes data from water quality monitoring and emphasizes the
importance of Shoreland vegetative buffers to protect the lake from the effects of development one quote from that memo States one of the more significant land use impacts are impervious surfaces impervious surfaces near double track Lake can have large nutrient impacts if storm water is not
taken care of in a conservation-minded way Overland flow can cause the transport of nutrients to the lake it's recommended that the storm water be directed away from the lake or captured to minimize nutrient flow the DNR area hydrologist also provided a technical memo outlining their review of the variance request relative to the
practical difficulty standards the DNR recommended denial the variance based off of several reasons uh one was that there was no unique circumstances associated with the property and that the variance request was needed for personal matters they also found that the proposal was not reasonable given
the purpose of the shoreline setback requirements and then the DNR found the primary reason for the variance was a design preference and approval of variance would be arbitrary and their in Precious as written in their memo for staff consideration for facts and
findings again um all variances are reviewed whether they're after the fact or proposed by the same standards as outlined in the co County zoning ordinance and in state rules and in these These are again my version of pulling out facts to fit into these findings so after you hold a public
hearing and ask questions and deliberate you're more than welcome to amend these but we need to have findings that support every decision that we make so they defensible so the variance is consistent with the goal 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 the Cook County zoning ordinance requires a 100 foot setback from recreational development Lakes the applicants are proposing a 35 and 55t setback from double track L for two decks as well as the 50ft sidey yard
line setback in Cook County zoning ordinance the relief being requested is a 10-ft encroachment 40ft setback Cook County zoning ordinance section 9.0 1 does not identify allowances for expansion or additions onto non-conforming Resort commercial
structures and I kind of glossed over this part but it's just to clarify that when we have these structures that are within setback areas like this it's legal for them to be maintained to be improved to be repaired even to be replaced but none of these structures
have rights to expansion and so that's that's a critical thing to kind of weigh and keep in mind is that there's no inherent right to expansion so it's your job to identify the Practical difficulty for granting variances when we Grant expansions for these types of structures what makes some special from others is
another way to think about that I included citations from the Cook County land use guide plan that pulls out several different policies uh relevant to this type of request for the second question the proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use District in which the
property is located the draft finding is that the parcel is zoned Resort commercial residential the parcel is a substandard legal lot of record with 1.31 acres and approximately 2011 ft of devil track Lake Shoreline Resort uses are permitted however expansions onto non-conforming Resort units are not
permitted the question number three the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable Banner not permitted by the C County zoning ordinance while the inclusion of decks on Resort structures is typical the proposed deck sizes and their close proximity to the lake relative to the size of the cabins and the original
decks rais questions regarding the reasonableness of The Proposal if the project had been submitted prior to construction staff would have recommended minimizing the size of the proposed deck expansion and locating the decks on the side of the building to reduce encroachment into the setback as well as positioning any stairs to avoid
further development within the shore Impact Zone reasonableness can be evaluated by considering both the size of the structure and the extent of the variants requested in this case the entire decks fall within the setback and significantly encroach over 50% into the setback area the shoreline setback
averaging calculation does not support the variance request as the principal structures of neighboring properties are located more than 80 ft from the shoreline and given the significant size of the proposed decks and their proximity to Lakeshore a more consistent approach would be involving angling or
aligning the deck additions with existing structure setback and reducing the deck footprint in relation to the size of the cabins the next question the property owner has established that a practical difficulty involved is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner the
application states that the prac techical difficulty is due to the location of the existing cabins and the larger decks are being added to enhance how guests are currently using the area around the cabins From staff's perspective the application has not demonstrated a valid practical difficulty because it's not unique to
the property and his landowner created staff do not identify a valid practical difficulty necessitating the need for the variance next question approving the variant maintain the essential character of the locality the resort or the area zone Resort commercial residential and
this would be a consistent use in this area several variances have been granted along Roman's Road due to the more restrictive RCR zoning with larger sidey yard setback requirements most of those variances are either from Road or sidey yard setback requirements and the subject parcel is located at the dead
end of the road or on a dead end Road and then the last question the property owner has established that the Practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone there would presumably be a cost of removing the decks however that can can not be the only reason to Grant this variance request staff recommendations for
consideration staff agrees with the findings of the DNR that the facts of this case do not present a sufficient practical difficulty to justify the variance while it is unfortun unfortunate that the property owner was not accurately informed by their contractor the variance request must still demonstrate a practical difficulty
in order to justify approval as a legal non-conforming lot with non-conforming structures the parcel has the right to exist as a resort and the structures have the right to remain however there is no right to expansion of non-conformities the board must determine whether the variance request meets the required standards for
approval failure to meet any one of those criteria will result in the denial of the variance request thank you Nea um would the applicant like to if you'd like to speak please state your name and address for the record my name is uh Thomas kintop
and I am the owner co-owner with along with my wife of devil track Lake cabins we live here in town in Grand marray uh 121 East Third Street um and run the resort as a seasonal um business so as
the Nea laid out yeah we had hired a contractor in 2023 to build us um at that time a couple of decks um had the discussion with him at the time about permit permitting and he assured us that permits were not required that's on me
for not um following up further with that um he built two decks one on our our bar cave cabin which is well not wasn't permitted at the time as well within um all the setbacks and um is not part of this discussion and then he
built the one on the fox den cabin he then um we then proceeded to continue business with him for two more decks one with on the bird's nest and one on which we have not um even begun work on yet
the um moose metal cab and he you know last spring he passed away and it when it landed back in my lap I that's when I dug into the permit um and then found out about the variance
requirements um for the fox den cabin um understandably the only thing I would say in that one is the side setback is no greater than or you know it doesn't encroach any further into um
this neighboring one than the previous stairs that were on the side of that cabin um we did not expand towards the sidey at all um and that would be um an Marie and and Jerry's place that that um wrot sent a note of support um
the purpose of the deck was to take the foot traffic up off out of the dirt that was you know the that was in front of the cabin um that space was already being used for seeding and um at that time there was a
a barbecue uh charcoal grill there as well um by by you know taking the foot traffic up out of the dirt we've actually directed it more towards you know the path to the lake it keeps the foot track traffic out of the sidey yard
um away from the uh the neighbors um the neighbor's property line so that was that was reasoning for that uh we also scaled you know kept that one as a minimum it is only a 10 x10 deck so that is that was our thinking behind that one for bird's nest um again they just
started the construction on that when when our contractor passed um we then again once we realized the the need for permitting and whatever we froze um construction on that uh until we got everything straightened out um we
would be willing to um foro that deck uh and go back to the original stair format um given that what's in front of the bird's nest is already a flat um gravel uh surface where the guests usually will
sit around the fire ring or at a picnic table it so it doesn't really necessarily change the uh the use or the um configuration of of that it was mostly it was that one was definitely more of a nice to have um and we'd be willing to to let that one go um but we
um would like to try to to save the the work that's on the um the uh fox den cabin if possible thank you uh is anyone else in the public wish to add anything to this
application hearing none we'll close it to the public and discuss it as a board start on my far left um Mr chair I did post hole around in the snow out
there yesterday for quite a while um and the to be honest the sidey yard variance doesn't really bother me but the Lakes Shore setbacks seem pretty egregious um I do agree with Mr K that there is that
flat area in front of um bird's nest which appears to have been kind of the seating area which seemed appropriate and that deck just seems totally out of out of character with the shoreline I mean I will give a little bit of credit I did walk the shoreline what we I could
tell the shoreline seems in better shape than some of the adjoining properties but and credit to that but um I would I would not be in favor of these uh impacts onto the shoreline set back Zone
Courtney um I agree with that mostly um the bird's nest cabin didn't bother me as much as the Foxton cabin I do feel that that deck is um way too close as
well uh I made a site visit as well um I agree I think given the nature of devil track and the fact that this is RCR rather than residential the side yard doesn't bother me but I would agree with
uh Mr Lee that it's it's very close to the lake those two decks uh and I would not be in favor therefore um I think you also have the memo from Soil and Water and there's pretty demonstrable water quality issues with devil TR and
so I would not be in favor of contributing to those with such close structures BR also did a side visit um with bird's nest I I agree that it's it's a wall plate the screws are still exposed it's pretty easy removal um not
not a large impa um the um when I looked at foxan um I I too noted that the the side set was in keeping with where it had been before that made sense to me I
appreciate that um the deck itself is not very large but when you add on the steps going towards the lake you really start going out there CU that's one there's that drop and it gets to be a lot longer staircase so um I'd be you know willing
to entertain if the rest of the board is considered that they remove the steps since it's already a completed deck and have finished the the the wall off there and and we accept that that 10-ft encroachment on Fox down none on bird's
nest because that's been removed but uh I just offer that as the the the steps are where we really start to jut out there but the rest of it is completed and it's sort of may I make I'm sorry sir I was just wondering
if I may make two statements regarding that yeah um so the first thing is the obviously yes we understand the steps but if we remove the steps that will just put the foot traffic through the through the trees closer to the sidey
guard because that would be the only way to access the lake then from that cabin um the previous stairs came down out of the side door and directed the traffic down that same path um so and while I
understand that there are legal definitions of impervious surfaces I would you know argue that a deck is not an impervious surface in the water runoff is no different than it was prior to the deck being there um but I also understand you know there are obvious
rules and regulations regarding this um the other question I would have is my it's my understanding that if I were to build that same platform of that same footprint on the ground no no higher than 12 in off the ground I would not need a permit or a variance for such a
thing I I that may be true and I think I would reference staff for that um but that that's actually an area of our ordinance that we're looking to clarify the language significantly um currently the land use permits are required
decks qualify once your 12 in are more off the ground so people have been finding some gray area with a 12 in or less uh interpreting that though in theory a person could just do full 12 Ines or less platforms on their whole Shoreline like that wouldn't really be
in compliance with the spirit and intent of our Shoreland regulations so we as staff recognize that we need to and and I'm not saying that that's what you're suggesting we've been talking about this a lot that it's confusing for land owners and it's confusing for staff so I've on the back burner are some draft v
um ordinance proposals to clarify that language currently we work off of like a square footage but I don't have it at the top of my head of what that policy application has been yeah and not to put Neva on the spot but we did have this conversation and um particular around our our moose
Meadow cabin what what our you know options are over there um and I'm not saying that's what we would necessarily do but you know I guess ultimately my my my um defense would be that the deck itself does not change the way the land
is used the the amount of runoff or the direction of the runoff and if that was if there is an issue we would be more than happy to put gutters on the indirect any other any runoff from the actual cabin back and away from the the lake itself um but there is a pretty
good buffer of of vegetation that that goes along there and unfortunately we I didn't file this until the snow flew so um we did not get a chance to get you know very really good pictures of what was going on but thank you um as I would
ask the members of the of the board would we like to go through our findings of facts or are we absolutely uh go through it yeah okay yeah there's there's I think I'm extensive documentation to be
addressed uh proposed use of the property is allowed in the the land use District in which the property is located no I'm starting in the wrong spot sorry I'm uh is the V is the variance 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 Z zoning ordinance and other Cook County official controls how do you guys that page you have a different numbering
system because of the size of your package yeah well that was why I we're on 14 14 14 I think to my mind uh yes in the sense that it's RCR and it certainly makes sense to be using
it as a resort I think the biggest hangup as referenced in these is thinking about the water quality and the environmental impact on the lake uh hangs that up for me I would agree with Paul
that all right proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use District in which the property is located yes yes the property owner owners proposing to use the property in a reasonable man
reasonable manner not permitted by the Cook County Zing ordinance it's um difficult in so far as the um the encroachment towards the lake is consistent just with wanting to add a
deck and how reasonable that becomes when their ordinance say we don't want to have encroachment into the shore Impact Zone uh with with additional structures in the sense that the
structures um you know grandfathered in with its existing size as it was when it was permitted so um you know I'm I'm more it gets reasonable to me when we're looking at a circumstance where there's
no other choice all right there's some people who just when you get on their property we had one last month I think was two months ago where that was the only really decent place for them to put
their cabin um you know on Caribou Lake and uh you know that's that's one where it was pretty straightforward to say that was reasonable in what we were doing um this
one seems generated by a desire not um a land restriction that just says you can't fit within the parameters I would also cite the shoreline setback averaging as a guide um looking at the surrounding properties
on devil track which we already like I've mentioned no has issues and that this is so much further in than the shoreline and setback averaging I think is what flags it for me mhm and I I mean I think it's along the same line you know it's the use is allowed as a
non-conforming use because it's grandfathered in but that doesn't allow for any expansion and that's a pretty standard discussion item on this is it's non-conforming there are certain things you can do but there are
certain things you canot do an expansion of the footprint into an impact zone is one of them and a Prett substantial uh addition relative to The Cabins it's not not 12 in or anything
yeah uh move on the next one a property owner has established that the Practical difficulty is invol involved is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner I I think this is a fail yeah I
don't agree with that okay um does approving the variance maintain the essential character of the locality I I didn't look at the other properties but I would say it probably does in the sense that having a deck on your home is a pretty common desire for
big owners oh it does get closer to the lake than the the current by quite a bit by quite a bit as the property owner established that practical difficulty involves more
than economic considerations alone I don't think so I don't see a practical difficulty in needing to place the decks in that location okay yeah and
uh any other discussion or look for a motion I just offer that you know as a as everyone's listening to this right we're required to go through these questions and a failure on one of them is a failure on all and um you know the
uh um following the process and the laws in terms of what we're doing we're here to help people when they have to color outside the lines but uh there's certain times when um that gets um you know if it doesn't pass
these seven questions that we don't have the choice anymore so just want to make sure that the whole public understands that as we go through this process here thank you Mr chair I'd like to make an a motion to deny the after fact after the
fact variance for this one okay second that we we've got a motion and a second any more discussion or we call for do we have any interest in also adding a a you know an offer to go back and align
with staff and see if they can come up with some suitable compromise I didn't quite catch that what do we need to add anything that would say that we would ask a petitioner to go back to staff and realign with you
for for possible um alternatives when he he fails this or is that just something he can do anyways yeah I me he can we can we can connect on that okay and think through for us to say anything if uh I think it would be helpful if
um you know if if we got I guess some guidance like do you think keeping any deck expansion if it was aligned with the setback of the cabin or like you know some some Metric so that I can help him understand what would be deemed as reasonable but again you're at that
practical difficulty element and so you know I don't want to dangle a carrot and then we go through it again and then we come back to the same conclusions again so what would make what would be a practical difficulty in these circumstances if you you know wanted to have that type of discussion because as
it is it's I don't I can't think of a way that would substantially change the findings that you've already drafted on this I think it be platforms well that's probably the solution that's helpful it is a helpful discussion and and observation mhm because I agree with you
we don't want to um dangle something that's that we you know have them spend effort and time on and yeah end up in the same spot yeah now I can work with the Land Services office on potential
Alternatives I mean any kind of decking whether it be off to the side that would further incre on the sidey yard um and the other only option would be into into the back of the which you know doesn't serve me any practical purpose um so you know unless there's a way to uh ex said
pursue a platform solution or something that's less encroach encroaching um we can um foro what we've got um definitely for Birds we will we will start that that deconstruction and just replace the exist you know the previous stairs or something comparable um and then Fox then we'll
we'll you know we'll do the same or try to find a solution that works and I just to to sum up what I think I heard in there in our discussion is is really it's the the the lake setback averaging is just not really allowing that there
may be something that would be uh a smaller smaller sum option that may be worth exploring but I I don't think we're going to get into that tonight I think that is something to explore with staff our challenge is you know this cabin was built 100 years ago and everything else around us is built much
much more recently um and so they all obviously meet the setbacks so right now what we got we've got a motion on the floor to deny um these after Thea variances we've got a second um I'd like to call for a
vote all in favor I I I opposed hearing n motion is variance is denied thank you for your consideration we'll move to Keith and ren Robin uh sorry Keith
and Robin Harmon um file 2025 2v Eva thank you Mr chair all right this is a variance request for relief from the Cook County zoning ordinance to place an approximate
13 Square ft of a screen porch approximately 4T into the bluff setback area where a 30ft bluff setback is required at 1 191 need him Road the property owners Keith Haron and the agents who we're working on the
application are Eric Johnson and Brett buer the applicant's property includes 1.56 Acres with approximately 165 ft of West bekin Lake Shoreline the parcel is contained with within the Lakeshore residential Zone district with F1 Zone
District on the backside newly created Lots within LSR must be 1 acre in size and 150 ft wide at the structure setback so this is a conforming lot and West Barkin lake is classified as a recreational development Lake and uh newly created Lots on that
zone District must be 150 ft wide and one acre in size the applicants are proposing a variance from the top of Blu setback to place a 12x 15 screen porch addition onto the existing cabin the screen porch will encroach 4 feet into
the top of left setback uh at a corner of the screen porch amounting to approximate 13 Square ft of the 180t addition requiring variance relief I included the bluff language that requires the setback requirements um so
the Cook County zoning ordinance outlines that no structures are allowed within the bluff Impact Zone and that the setback from the top of bluff is is 30 ft so this is meet this is outside of the bluff Impact Zone um but it's not meeting the 30ft
setback for backgrounds the property currently has a house garage and shed all recently permitted and constructed beginning in 20 2014 during the original permitting a survey of the property was completed and used extensively in the permitting process for the home records
from the 2014 land use permit application for the garage show lengthy correspondence between Land Services staff and the contract ctor to place the structure close to the bluff and Lake still meeting setbacks to provide room for the septic tank and Mound away from the lake the current owners purchased
the property in 2021 and had a new survey completed to prepare for this project during this time it was discovered that the house was placed 10 ft closer to the lake and Bluff than stated on the permit although existing development does still meet setback requirements for site conditions and
consideration the property is served by a septic system which was installed in 2014 the certificate of compliance expired in 2024 so if approved a new septic inspection request form will need to be submitted in conjunction with the land use permit impervious surface coverage uh requirements are met on this
site wetlands are not an issue driving the need for the variance for slope the property has a bluff between the lake and the building site the application indicates that the Practical difficulty preventing the addition of the screen porch onto the side of the cabin is Rock outcroppings on the side of the cabin
and for Shoreline Health the existing Shoreland vegetation is primarily naturally vegetated with M mature trees and shrubs I thought I had some photos oh there it is um so there's some photos of the Shoreland and quite an elevation
change there um and the structure of the cabin so where that overhang is I believe that's going to be removed and instead the screen porch will be added on and so the corner of that screen porch That's closest to where this view is taken from the corner of that screen porch which would be encroaching in that
top up left setback for public comments uh the application was noticed in the Cook County News Herald on February 14th and 12 letters of notification were sent to adjacent Property Owners as well as County departments and the DNR hydrologist three written comments were submitted by neighboring Property Owners
both in support all in support of the request Gretchen and Bob at 217 Edom Road support the variance does not feel the variance will impact any neighbors the view from the lake nor environmental impacts Kevin and Cy Smith at 183 NM Road support the variance points out
that placing the addition in this location will be less visible than if it was placed on the side of the building indicates no negative impact in neighbor environment or lake users and Kate kellenberger at 135 nem roads supports the variance Additionally the following
agencies provided their comments The Soil and Water Conservation District provided a technical memo that explains the importance of implementing best management practices for construction storm water and I would note this survey designs do show uh silt fence and construction storm water management practices being implemented and the DNR
did not submit a comment letter on this variance request for staff considerate consideration of facts and findings the variance is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive Land 's guide plan and in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the County zoning ordinance and other County
official controls the draft findings are that the zoning ordinance requires a 100 foot setback from the lake and this is meeting that Lake setback and the zoning ordinance requires a 30ft from top of bluff the applicant is proposing a 4ft encroachment into the top of bluff setback at a corner of the screen porch
the project avoids all encroachment into the bluff Impact Zone I also included language from the land use guide plan for your consideration as well with different policies the proposed use of the pro property is allowed in the land use District in which the property is located proposed finding the prop parcel
is zoned Lakeshore residential the applicant's property includes 1.56 Acres with approximately 165 ft of West Barkin Lake Shoreline this is a conforming parcel residential uses are permitted in the own District the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Cook County
zoning ordinance an encroachment of 4 feet into the bluff setback is a reasonable request the structure remains outside of the bluff impact area the relatively minimal encroachment will make this project possible and therefore reasonable the property owner has established that the Practical difficulty involved is due to
circumstances is unique to the property and not created by the property owner the property owner has demonstrated the natural landscape features of Bedrock outcropping prevent the location of the addition into the side of the structure where would be meeting setbacks approving the variance maintains the essential character locality the area is
z lak Shore residential the subject parcel is located at the end of a dead end Road the addition of the screen porch approaching four feet into the bluff setback does not appear to alter the essential character locality and is unlikely to be noticeable from the lake and economic considerations are not found to be a reason for the request
staff recommendations for consideration this is a relatively minor encroachment with only a corner of the addition within the bluff setback area and the structure will remain outside of the bluff Impact Zone between the difficulties of the Shoreland setbacks with the bluff the septic components and natural Bedrock outcropping features
staff by the landscape does provide practical difficulties if development of the property to date has tried to address and accommodate these features the variance could be avoided if the applicant propos a smaller screen porch while this is a consideration the board may choose to further discuss weighing the benefits of the variance relief to
the property owner versus the amount of variance relief requested or cost of the county is a way to say by granting a little variance relief this project will be possible and therefore it is reasonable if approved the following conditions may be attached to this variance request number one the property shall conform to Minnesota rule 7080 and
the C County Septic requirements the current certificate of compliance is no longer valid a new septic inspection request form shall be submitted in conjunction with the land use permit application and number two the addition of the permitted and constructed in accordance with the variance relief
granted thank you um would the applicant would you like to state your name and address and add anything to the narrative uh yes thank you it's uh Keith Harmon um my address is 4703 Meadow Road uh any Dina which is a first tier suburb
my wife's not here tonight because she's home taking care of the dogs um I first want to thank the uh commission uh the board of adjustment for reviewing this and all the work that's gone into it uh
we did have a survey done uh the bluff line there is very complicated as it goes in front of our cabin um it sort of trails off on one side and it's more pronounced on the other side and where it actually disappears is sort of
complicated so that uh Bluff setback line kind of crosses in front of the cabin where we want to put um the three season porch um it's all Bedrock there so we
are very hopeful and believe there will be no heavy equipment brought in to build this um no serious digging uh the Builder is going to be uh Willie Anderson who works for Crown who just built the
um North North school house or the North uh uh Schoolhouse here in town so he does a lot of construction around here and is very familiar with it um our goal was to build a you know a seasonal three
season screen porch um and uh the variance uh is to put this in front of the cabin um if you put it on the left or the right you have a great much greater visual uh presence from the lake
our cabin really almost cannot be seen from the lake it's approximately 40 ft above the lake level and in the summer the green vegetation you could drive a boat right by and you really can't see it we really want to maintain that uh
piece of it and we feel like the uh the screen porch will be right in front of the cabin it won't add any visual presence uh from the lake um and I think uh this is supported by our
neighbors uh the one to our West and to our East and another one to our East um um and I guess that's about all I have to say we won't I don't believe we'll remove any vegetation to put this on um and there
won't be any heavy construction equipment there thank you uh is anyone else from the public here to speak on this application or variance hearing none we'll close it to
the public and uh discuss as a board Brad weeds um in reviewing this package the uh the forfoot encroachment particularly with the Bedrock component discussions that were were brought up both by the applicant and by staff um
they're are meaningful in the sense that you you the property of providing restrictions in terms of what's available um and and going to the front and the the 13 Square ft is is quite minor um I don't see any particular
benefit to the county in terms of denying it um I'd be uh supportive of the request Paul yeah I think it's a very thoughtful uh application for a very minor uh variance of only 13 Square ft
I'm able with it and I think the findings of facts lay that out well yes I do I agree I agree with both prior comments yeah as well plus I like it it's outside the 100 foot Lake set back so I mean that bigger issue is there you
know taken care of Y um do we want to go through the findings of facts or or concur with staff's findings I reviewed the staff findings a couple times and I'm in concurrence with their findings I can agree um um I would uh look for a
motion I would make a motion to approve motion do we uh so staff's findings and conditions conditions yeah the staff has set on number one property sh conform to rule 780 Cook County Septic requirements uh new inspection
requirement the addition of permitted construction accordance with variance relief granted so I would say that uh we make a motion to approve with staff recommendations recommendations acceptable incorporate courney do you agree with that yes okay
so we've got a motion did we have a second I'll second we've got a motion in a second um all in favor I hi opposed hearing none BR is granted approved thank you very much we
appreciate your time and diligence thank you I'll send you a memo tomorrow say that I'll send you a memo following this fabulous thanks very much have a good evening you too uh we'll move to am I on the right
um item C William beckstrand uh case 2025 3v right Mr chair this is a variance request for after the fact relief from the C count zoning ordinance section 7.05 to place an approximate 147 ft
screen porch at a reduced Lake Superior Shoreline setb of 34 ft where a minimum of 40 ft is required at 22 Mossy hollow points the applicant's property is 11.16 Acres with approximately 310 ft of Lake
Superior Shoreline the parcel is entirely within the single family R1 Zone District lot size requirements for that zone District on Lake Superior is that Lots must be 1 acre in size and 200 ft wide of the structural setback this is a conforming parcel and Lake Superior is classified as a general development
Lake and it's developed standards are outlined in the NorthShore management plan and adopted in article 8 of The Cook County zoning ordinance Mr backstrand is requesting after the fact variance relief to allow the 147 ft porch to remain within the Lakes SP setback the porch encroaches
approximately 6 feet into the shoreline setback the porch was not issued a land use permit before it was constructed between 2017 and 2018 I included the ordinance Citation for the section article 7even the Shoreland setback standards which for Lakes Superior
require a 40 ft from vegetation line for building setback for backgrounds the property currently has a house shed deck and ouse in 2017 the applicant applied for and received a land use permit for a 480t twostory house with a 60t deck I
included the permit number as well as a site sketch from what staff have on file from that permit as you can see in that permit application it was was and a lot of this will get to but it was permitted from South's perspective to be kind of a rectangle square building um the landies
permit was amended in E permitting to also include a 600t pole building and carport in 2023 the county assessor's office conducted their regular review which provided a record of the development and uh is shown in figure 4 and I don't think I outlined that very
well in the slides so I'm not going to try to convey them on there so I apologize uh but to the packet so in 2024 um no additional land use permits were applied for until October 2024 when Mr be strand applied for a land use permit for a garage during that site
visit with staff the for the garage Lane use permit staff noticed that the additional construction had occurred exceeding the permitted 16 by 302 story house that was permitted in 2017 in the variance application Mr beand explains that the screen porch was
constructed in 2017 to 2018 under the land use permit issued by County Land Services um this is how he interpreted that permit but from the actual permit standpoint it it wasn't included in that original permit um the permit in 2017
for the house with had a 60qt deck with it that wasn't identified for the location there wasn't anything in the 2017 permit that indicated the 147 ft screen porch as far as um its location or being a part of the building
footprint Mr be strand has explained in his variance application that he interpreted the County's land use permitting process as an allowable range of development although he applied for and received his land use permit for the cabin with specific dimensions he was thinking that he was allowed to develop additional structures up to the maximum
square footage range for the fee schedule without needing to amend the permit the land use permit was for a 1,20 ft cabin and deck the corresponding permit fee was $200 for the category of the 1,000 to 3,000 square foot um of
building Mr be strand has explained in his variance application that when the porch was constructed it was meeting the 40ft structure setback requirement and there's been substantial loss to the Shoreline in vegetation since 2017 making it now non-conforming in the packets I've
included some kind of excerpts from that 2017 land use permit indicating that um the original structure that was permitted through Land Services was a more rectangular standard size structure um and then also so we include some dra
some language from the C County assessor's office that's kind of a snapshot in time of all of the developments um present at that point in time so the 147 SP SF the screen porch square footage um is on the County
Assessors indicating that there um for site considerations the property is served by a permitted ouse for impervious surface coverage the parcel meets impervious surface coverage requirements wetlands are a significant feature on this parcel although the
parcel has a lot of acreage u a lot of the acreage is consumed by Wetlands so Mr beand has a wetland delineation that's been used and referenced and he's been very uh diligent and patient with the Wetland permitting process to for the buildout of this develop of this
parcel so the Wetland delineation is on page 73 and that is kind of what leads you then on page 74 of your packet there is and uh the detail B is kind of what shows his building area um so it's in
the South corner of that parcel is kind of your Upland area by the lake if you will of the 11 acres and so that is where all of his development has to kind of be focused on that so he doesn't run a Miss with State Wetland regulations obviously the slope is
pretty flat because there's so many Wetlands uh for Shoreline Health the applicant um has indicated that significant erosion has occurred to the Shoreline during the years of high water level on Lake Superior land use specialist Mitch Travis put together um
a a kind of desktop analysis to try to indicate where that vegetation line may have changed over time to correspond relative to the structure location and so if you're on page 74 of your packet and also on your screens is kind of the comparison so the yellow is showing the
approximate location of the 2023 vegetation line and the blue is showing the 2018 vegetation line and the green polygons is the approximate location of the actual building with the screen porch being the closest point to that
yellow um shoreline erosion area so um kind of the big picture is Mr beckstrand built the screen porch when he built his house thinking that it was permitted with with a house and it was meeting 40 ft at that point in time and then the erosion happen and then it came to our
attention it wasn't permitted so now here we are and it's not conforming so just for a broad overview um I did the shoreline setback averaging it wasn't very helpful because there's not a lot of development
in this area um there was one structure on the point uh east of him that is about 23 feet from the shoreline about um but everything else is either conforming or undeveloped so Shoreline setback averaging wasn't uh a very
useful Benchmark in this location for this application for public comments the application was legally noticed in the co County News Herald on February 14th 10 letters of notification were sent to adjacent Property Owners as well as County departments and the DNR hydrologist no written comments were
received from ad joining Property Owners during written comment period the land use specialist provided a memo that explained his understanding of the site visit during permitting uh and he understood that he was verifying the area identified in the land use permit not necessarily for the screen porch the Cook County Soil and Water Conservation
District provided a technical memo that explains the importance of quality of Shoreline vegetation to protect against receding shorelines the site's primarily composed of Rock with minimal soils root systems from vegetation is important to protect against further erosion where possible and the DNR did not submit a
comment letter on this variance request for sta consideration for facts and findings um first question the zoning ordinance requires a setback of 40 ft from the vegetation line of Lake Superior the applicant is proposing a
34t setback the and then I outlined certain goals um that are outlined in the co County land use guide plan the proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use District in which the property is located the parcel is Zone single family residential property
includes 11.16 Acres with approximately 310 ft of Lake spe Shoreline residential uses are permitted in the sewn District the property owner is proposing to use the property in reasonable man not permitted by the C County zoning ordinance it is reasonable to request add a screen porch to the entrance of a
dwelling the screen porch is encroaching into the shoreline setback approximately 6 feet with much of the screen porch being situated outside of the setback area reasonableness can be evaluated by considering both the size of the structure and the extent of the variants requested in this case a portion of the screen porch is within the setback area
and approaches 6 feet into the setback area aerial imagery supports the notion that some shoreline erosion may have occurred since the original cabin development began in 20177 next question the property owner has established that practical difficulty involved is due to the circumstances unique to the property and
not created by the property owner the property has a significant amount of wetlands that have created a corner of the property uh by the lak shore limited availability for conforming development the screen porch is placed within a tight location between the building sidey and Shoreline the property owner
has explained that the screen porch was placed in 2017 2018 time frame during which time there was more shoreline distance and that this was placed meeting the 40ft setback staff have reviewed aerial imagery and agree that this does appear that there's been erosion activity next question approving
the variants maintain the essential character locality it's unlikely that approving the variants will alter the essential character locality and the property owners established that practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone there would likely be cost of minimizing the screen porch to comply with the
structure setback requirements however this cannot be the only reason to Grant the variance relief first off consideration uh recommendations for consideration The Chosen building site is limited in expansion options between the property lines wetlands and Shoreline further consideration for
facts and findings staff find that there may be findings that support the approval of the variance request with a shoreline erosion occurring the property owner should be diligent in future construction projects that may become non-conforming due to additional erosion in the future and staff recommends future development include staking out
proposed construction locations with corresponding detailed permits the applicant should also consider further consultation with the Soil and Water Conservation District to improve the shoreline vegetation to stabilize a Shore if approved the following conditions may be considered number one a land use permit is completed for the
addition and number two the vegetation within the shore Impact Zone 20 ft from vegetation line is maintained to include trees and shrubs for the purposes of stabilization of the shoreline thank you Nea uh Mr be strand would you like to state your name and
address for the record and add anything to the narrative uh Bill beckstrand 22 Mossy hollow point in hoveland and I don't really have much to add other than I did hear back from five of the 10 letters that went out in my own personal
email and text all in support of the project and that they had absolutely no issues with it um and I didn't instruct them that they ought to write their own letters but um and I can't think of anything else thank
you uh is anyone from the public uh wish to speak on this application hearing none we'll close it to the public and discuss as a board who wants to start I can start uh I mean I think yeah
the the we describe the whole property as a practical difficulty um given the wetlands I think uh it's a good accounting of sort of the history of of how we got to this moment uh and I would say the the biggest factor for me is
that the movement of the vegetation line I think that is what has set up this variance hearing and I'm uh comfortable acknowledging that it was built to 40 at the time it was permitted even though it wasn't permitted per se that would have
been dealt with separately not in a variance hearing um so I'm I'm comfortable with this uh as the findings effect state courney would you like to yep I am very comfortable with approving this as
is yeah I I would agree Paul because you know during this time period that lake has gone up and come down 3 feet and there has been some pretty extensive and I know in some of my dealings with DNR over the years loss of Shoreline up to over a
5year period can be included in consideration for Shoreline reestablishment and things like that so you know it doesn't seem that 6 ft is a huge amount here yeah so a number of things I looked
into one is the 2017 variance you know he was approved for a deck they said 60 square feet and was larger than that but I also find that in that documentation that was provided where that deck was going to go wasn't wasn't delineated either so we kind of left with a
circumstance where um the the applicant land owner um ends up in sort of a you know the ability to vary things somewhat but I do also note that in the 2024 land use request for the garage he did show
the deck and accurately they depicted it so it's further reinforces his beliefs that this is perfectly legit thing to do figure nine showing the vegetation erosion you can see the Shadows of the trees in the earlier picture they're gone in the second picture so good work
by the uh by the staff in terms of bringing that to our attention in such a clear way um the uh the request for the for the for the variance makes perfect sense to me uh given that and
um prepared I can make a motion would we like to agree with staff's findings of facts go through it on own yeah y do you guys AG with concur with staff I would make a motion that we uh approve this variance agreeing with the findings of
provided by the staff and using the conditions that the staff has put forth and the uh land use permit be completed for the addition and vegetation uh improvements on the property to uh help with erosion we have a motion do we have a
second a second we got a motion in a second any other discussion all in favor say I I I opposed hearing thatone variance is approved thank Youk you thank you for
your the work you all do all right um we will do Todd apologize if I get the name wrong Nova Nova um variance 20254
V NAA thank you Mr chair this is a variance request for relief from the Cook County zoning ordinance to place a 14t x 43t twostory addition onto the principal dwelling 50 ft from the shoreline setback of West Pope Lake which is a special recreational
development Lake where the 100t setback requirement is located at 8827 Old Gunflint Trail the property owner is Todd novachuk and the agent for the application is Richard Olsen the property includes 2.19 Acres with
approximately 147 ft of West Pope Lake Shoreline the parel is contained entire contained within the Lakeshore residential Zone District as well as F3 Zone District newly created Lots within the LSR Zone must be 1 acre in size and 1 15 ft wide of the structural setback
and for Shoreland classification West Pope lake is classified as special recreational development Lake newly created Lots on this classification of Lake must be 200 ft wide and 1 and2 acres in size this makes it a non-conforming parcel due to the lot width
requirements the applicant is requesting a variance from the shoreline setback requirements to place a 14x 43t two-story addition onto the existing non-conforming grandfathered cabin the addition will increase the height of the structure approximately 10 ft higher
than the current peak of the cabin the application indicates that the cabin is planned for improvements including weatherization new windows New Heating and a drilled well and is described as a multigeneration multi-generational vacation home the addition will provide additional bedrooms and
bathrooms included the ordinance Citation for that special recreational development Lake classification in the packets and the special recreational development Lake classification is a local Cook County specific classification which requires greater
lot width and lot area and setback requirements from standard recreational development Lake classifications The Wider lot width and area requirement results in less dense Shoreline development residential non-conforming structures in Shoreland area are granted
certain rights under Minnesota state statutes to be allowed to exist and can be repaired and maintained and even replaced in its exact configuration without variances however there's no inherent right to expansion of these structures for structures such as this that do not meet the 50% of the
structure setback requirements there are stipulations to increase the structure setback if feasible should the original structure be disted destroyed I included that language in the state rules uh just for reference on page 96 of the packets
on page 97 is an excerpt from the application that shows the addition location which is slightly offset from where the cabin location is so part of the addition will also be visible from the lake for backgrounds the property
currently has a house garage small water oriented accessory structure a fish house and an ous County Assessor records confirm the house was built pre- zoning requirements with an actual build Year date of 1964 in 1984 a variance was granted to
place a deck onto the cabin 8 ft from the shoreline the approval was granted on the determination that no other cabins are visible in this area and heavy Shoreline vegetation will screen the proposed deck and vegetation to be removed in front of the deck in 1989 a
variance was granted to place the garage 81 ft from the shoreline the variance was granted on the determined that the low area creates a hardship for building further back the photo on the screen and on page 98 of the packet is from the 1984 variance file for the deck showing
the vegetation that was in front of the cabin between the cabin and the lake previously on page 99 of your packet is a photo of the current deck today as viewed from the shoreline during winter conditions obviously and the back side
of the cabin where the addition is proposed for site conditions and considerations for septic the County environmental health specialist Mitchell ion provided a memo that explains that the current cabin is served by a two-bedroom 225 gallon per day septic
system the addition of bedrooms additional dwellings water using devices or other factors will likely affect the operation of the septic and a licensed septic designer will need to design and accommodate these factors additionally the current septic was last inspected in 1994 and a new compliance inspection
will be required the parcel meets impervious surface requirements slope is not an issue driving the need for the variance for Shoreline Health due to the close proximity of the cabin and its deck there's minimal Shoreland buffer between the cabin and the lake the 1984 deck
variance was granted under the condition that Shoreland vegetation would screen the deck from the lake today the cabin and deck are highly visible from the lake under current conditions and screening isn't a viable option given the narrow width of shoreline between the lake and the cabin figures three and
four the packet kind of outline the current visibility of that for Wetlands uh Cook County Landy specialist M Travis lended a hand in providing an analysis of the approximate Wetland boundaries which are kind of confined by the topography as you drive
in on the the driveway um there's a a dip where the power line is and that's where the wetlands are and then you go back up the hill and you're out of the wetlands again uh by this estimate using the topographic lines and the approximate Wetland boundaries staff estimate that
there's approximately 187 to 213 ft of building uh Upland well Upland area between the wetlands and the lake on this lot that is being noted because the location of the garage when the garage was granted a variance um indicated that
there was Wetlands immediately behind the garage and was indicating that there's only about 100 5 to 110 ft of Upland area between the lake and a swamp uh this is obviously an inaccurate description of the site conditions and
uh as staff said there's there's more more location behind the garage for building area than what that original variance was making that decision based off of we obviously have better technology and information today than we had back in 1989 for Shoreline setback averaging uh
staff evaluated section 7.12 of the Cook County zoning ordinance to do that evaluation um this provision is to analyze the shoreline setback variances relative to surrounding Land Development this only applies into certain circumstances
including in areas where development exists on both sides of a proposed building site Water Road set box may be VAR to conform uh on this property there is no development on the west side of the subject property uh where it's federal land and therefore this provision does not apply to this
property so there is no Shoreline setback averaging component to this analysis for other considerations West Pope lake is largely surrounded by federal lands the subject property is in a small cluster of private land on the Southshore this is likely why the lake
was designated a special recreational development Lake to maintain that character for public noticing the application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on February 14th with 12 letters of notification to adjacent Property Owners as well as County departments and the DNR
hydrologist on figure 10 on page 103 of your pack ET is the aerial imagery uh that shows the subject property in a yellow Square for uh public comments we from that mailing that we sent out written comments were submitted by the following
ades some Property Owners Thomas Hayden at 8810 old Gunflint Trail wrote a comment letter opposed to the request stating that it generally seems to indicate that this would not fit the character of the area and Charles SMY at 880 7 old Gunflint Trail wrote in a
comment letter opposed to the request and CES earlier variance reliefs granted and the expansion of the height of the structure opposed the addition without the removal of the original structure Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District provided a technical memo uh that discussed storm
water and Spruce budworm this memo explains that in this area uh it wasn't hit during the 2007 Ham Lake Fire but under significant pressure by Spruce budworm which has created a declining Forest due to the high density a balom fur the memo also explains that West Pope lake has not been monitored for
water quality since much of the shoreline is federal public land and not subject to development pressure the S swcd indicates that the greatest impacts to Lakes are the addition of impervious surfaces near the lake which increase nutrient load and storm water runoff this is typically mitigated by a
vegetated buffer the memo recommends that storm water be directed away from the lake to allow infiltration into the soil rather than Overland flow directly into the lake the memos provided recommendations to address erosion and sediment control and the DNR area hydrologist provided a technical memo
outlining their review of the variance requests relative to the Practical difficulty standards the DNR recommends denial of the variance based off three reasons there's no unique circumstances associated with the property and the variance request is needed for personal matters such as family needs design
preference and financial considerations number two the variance will alter the essential character of the area citing the increase in impervious surface area in the SE axel and the visibility of the Second Story Edition from the lake with lack of vegetative screening and the DNR finds the primary reason for the variance is a
design preference and approval of the variance would be arbitrary and capricious for staff considerations for facts and findings the Cook County zoning ordinance requires a setback of 100 ft from special recreational Lakes
Recreation development Lakes the current cabin is entirely within the shore Impact Zone of the lake the addition of the cabin would be placed away from the lake but within fully within or within that 100 foot setback the coook County zoning ordinance section 9.02 for
non-conforming structures does not allow identify allowances for expansion onto non-conforming residential structures I also included certain land use guide plan elements that talk about um certain priorities for Development Across the county for your
consideration the next question the proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use District in which the property is located the parcel is Zone Lakeshore residential the lot is 2.19 Acres with approximately 147 ft of West Pope Lake Shoreline residential uses are permitted in the zwn district number
three the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by Cook County zoning ordinance residential uses are permitted use in the LSR Zone District the size of the proposed addition and the close proximity of the current cabin suggests there could be some discussion by the
board of adjustment as to whether this is a reasonable expansion due to the existing non-conformity this is a significant amount of variance relief to Grant when the alternative building space is available on the parcel and the visibility of the addition to the lake will be increased reasonableness can also be evaluated by considering both
the size of the structure and the extent of the variance requested in this case the entire addition is fully within the shoreline setback area and the addition increases the maximum height of the existing structure last question the property owner has a stat third to the last sorry
property owner is established the Practical difficulty involved is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by property owner the application indicates that the addition onto the existing cabin is to allow for more use as it is a generational family vacation home the existing cabin is
fully within the shore Impact Zone so any addition onto the structure requires a variance the application explains in question two that the site has typical terrain and the application explains in question three that the cabin is a legal non-conformity From staff's perspective the application has not demonst at a
valid practical difficulty nor can staff identify a valid practical difficulty necessitating the need for the variance the proposed variance is requested because a landowner desires to expand an existing non-conforming structure practical difficulties cannot be created by a by a land
owner uh DNR finds that the facts do not support a valid practical difficulty being present and identify the main need for the variance as a landowner designed preference variance question approving the variant maintain the essential care of the locality West Pope lake is largely undeveloped because land
ownership surrounding the lake is federal land due to the close proximity of the structure to the lake and the expansion of the Second Story this addition will be highly visible from Lake users and last question the property owner has established the Practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone economic
considerations are not the reason for the variance request staff recommendations for consideration previous variance approvals included mischaracterizations that should be noted the deck variance was granted with the finding that the shoreline vegetation buffer would screen
the deck and cabin from the lake the buffer has diminished and does not visually screen the structure from the lake the garage variance is granted based on incorrect information regarding Wetland proximity to the lake the wetlands are approximately 20000 ft from the lake providing conforming building locations closer to the lake as well as
additional space south of the wetlands near the road staff agrees with the findings of the DNR that the facts of this case do not present sufficient practical difficulty to justify granting the variance while existing non-conforming structures can be maintained and improved there is no entitlement to expand them although the
proposed addition is located away from the lake it would increase the structures height and remain visible furthermore the increase in impervious surface coverage within the structure setback area would contribute to Greater storm water runoff into the lake and without a functional Shoreline buffer to
filter the runoff the land owners's goal of increasing residential capacity can be achieved through the addition of a guest house Cook County regulations permitting guest house without more restrictive size or setback requirements compared to the primary dwelling the area south of the garage is suitable for
this purpose wherever additional living space is constructed the subject design considerations will also need to be taken into account if the board determines that a practical difficulty is present and can identify findings that support a variance staff recommend that the board consider the DNR findings
for consideration for conditions of approval um and I think that's it thank you Nea uh would the applicant would you like to add anything to the narrative if you would please state your name and address for the
record yes I'm first of all I'm Todd navatek um son uh oldest son of the developer of the property some of the things that have been raised um I think are erroneous but also I have no way
of uh collaborating um why something was built you know with a 10- foot U air in the setback it built at 91 ft and instead of 100 ft I I
have no way to explain that to you uh I wasn't I wasn't there and uh I don't know so but I just I think um with all due respect ladies and gentlemen I I think given um what I think I understand
staff's position certainly is and also a very concerning letter from the DNR um U with with a number of comments in there that I think are just are really
over the top I would beg you to consider allowing me to table this um for another month and so I could um better get my arms around uh some of the um saling
points and the comments um you know from both staff and and the DNR I think it would um it certainly would help me understand better the why um behind some of the comments or some of the decisions and
the position of denial from both staff and DNR so I would ask if that's possible I don't I don't know what your protocol is here um but if I could table this allow me to go do some more research homework I'm acting on behalf
of a our family um and uh I would love to come back with more preparation or better better understanding so I had I could be clear in my responses and I
right now I I I don't I just feel that I'm it's it feels a little overwhelming so okay I I wouldn't see any issue with tabling is that reasonable certainly as
long as you if you do table a couple things to keep in mind uh table it noticing the date that it would be reconvened also once there is a motion to table there's no more discussion so you know have whatever discussion you want to have be cautious about when you choose to make that motion and we do
have a meeting planned for April 2 Wednesday I'm sorry I don't understand that you you're saying there can be no discussion when we come back yeah no it's once once the board tables it we cannot discuss it any further yeah so they can motion it's
kind of a rule of order for how we do things and I would agree with NE I think we should discuss it to provide the applicant some insight into some of the issues we might want to consider at the moment we're still in our public comment portion um so we'll uh open it to the
public if anyone would like to speak on this item you're welcome to do so now hearing none we're going to close it to the public and discuss as board Jeff my apologies on that um um I
think um I did visit the site is an interesting trip to say the least um and a couple of things that really struck me that need need to kind of be considered here is the impact that the current structure has on the Lake Shore there's
a pretty noticeable loss of vegetation and even with the snow it's really obvious there's some erosion happening on that Shoreline um west Pop lake is an extremely sensitive Lake because it's
very shallow it's average depth is less than 6 ft so so any additional land use changes on it that increased runoff could be very noticeable very rapidly so it's important we think about that
um the other part there's going to need to be a new septic system because or changes to it and that setting on top of the hill next to the lake starts to become rather
restrictive as you go that wetland is in the depression between between the um County Road and that that that kind of bifurcates this property so there's there's some real issues but yeah
putting this big a structure that CL close to the lake especially given as how the roof runoff on the current structure is directed to the lak shore now um there' have to be some real consideration about how that's taken care of
um I would like to add that it also would change the essential character um going up adding it from the lake it's definitely going to be a bigger much bigger um insight and view from the
lake I also made a site visit today actually uh before the meeting and I would concur with what a lot of Mr Lee said uh it's a tight site but I do see
what staff alluded to with um the space to the side is that the south of the garage going towards the Wetland I do believe there is space there um that would be buildable uh and not have the same impact on the lake I'm also looking
I think the drawing uh that Mr Olson did is very helpful uh in showing the 50 Foot Impact Zone and 100 foot setback and where that lands on the existing structures um you know I think relative to a lot of what we've
heard tonight you know we' talked about little encroachments and big encroachments and this is putting a big encroachment Square in the the setback so that's that's a concern of mine for sure yeah I consider the setback excuse
me the uh the encroachment being requested is is is quite up there on the scale um to the to the negative which is why I think we see so many reports coming from DNR and
staff you know not not in favor of this I'd also offer that when we're talking about shoreline erosion I'm looking at figure 12 in the package and I see stumps so trees have been purposely cut down um you know not in keeping with the uh the direction of the previous
variants that vegetation would cover the deck as it was shown in the previous figure so um just a number of things there that are concerning with respect to protecting the the uh the lake itself and your Mr Lee's observations about the
lake being shallow I was unaware of that but that's certainly meaningful as well in terms of my consideration I think so our applicant has asked requested tabling I see no issue with tabling given all this information um and I
would suggest that we do it for for one month to our next scheduled meeting question okay go ahead I I would just raise the raise a clarification also to the applicant in that tabling isn't an opportunity for like more information to be submitted essentially it's a pause in
time so when we reconvene in April you're picking right back up into discussion and the applicant will be more informed and more familiar with you know the status of of what's in the packet but it's not time to contribute more to the application I would say
right now we're kind of the time is closed to add stuff to this case and you're reviewing based off of what's been submitted for this okay um the 60-day clock doesn't start since it's a request from the applicant um it this is
still running on on those timelines but we we have um I I can always extend it an additional 60 days so we should be fine within that one month allowance thanks for that consideration Mr chair question of clarification so by tabling
it next month we would essentially take up the same variance request it would it cannot be modified that's my interpretation of it and I wanted to make that clear for the applicant to understands that um you
know it's it's a you guys granting him time to consume this information and feel better informed so you make your decision he understands what is in the packet but it's not more time for him to add more because this is what's been
public noticed so any substantial changes um the kind of caveat to that sometimes things are tabled if you guys are asking for specific specific information so you know sometimes you come and you're like ah maybe the highway department could tell us what they think about this road you know and
those are things that we'll do sometimes for tabling but when an applicant's requesting it and oh you want to want chip in yeah just a little bit um Bard that the applicant if there are questions that are coming up and concerns that have
come up during the uh read of the narrative the applicant does have the ability to provide clarifying information that the ultimate request of the the variance doesn't change all right so Nea is correct in the fact that
you can't like change the variance I I wanted 6t no no I I want it 12 ft you can't change what the variance the variance is what the variance is but the board can table it to request clarifying information and the applicant can
request the tabling of it to be able to provide more clarifying uh information but it's just it it's essentially the the same request it's just providing clarifying information that may have come up during uh the course of a uh the
reading of the report or so so Mr chair it might be a reasonable question to ask even if the rhetorical question we don't need to answer but even if the applicant provides some additional pieces of
information it really doesn't change the variance requests that they have made which it seems to be the issues that are causing the problem with approval and I can also understand though that the applicant probably got
this package last week MH and it's voluminous and there's a lot of um counterarguments in there and opportunity to absorb it and feel that he understands it better and is better able to respond to things is is also perfectly reasonable because it wouldn't
want him he's already stated he feels overwhelmed by it so I I want to respect that I guess I would like to just ask ask the applicant sir are you following the discussion and feel yes yeah I am I I don't know if it's appropriate or
whatever but I comments about erosion uh we haven't seen erosion anywhere along that that shore line along the whole 176 ft um comment about trees yes we've had
some wind damage Etc trees that were broken off at the top seter and I I did cut I think two uh trees one about maybe 8 in and one about six um this last summer but that was a damaged thing and I didn't want them falling in the lake
and so that that's a comment whether you care to hear it or not I don't I don't know but I just wanted to be up front I'm I'm not out there take in in to
Miss Maxwell's comments about vegetation in the summer the vegetation in front of that you don't see the base of the cabin the only thing you see is the deck rail because everything's growing up there and you see the deck rail on the one picture but you you're
not seeing you're you're not seeing that base of the cabin which in fact is all rock it's all Split Rock the whole base my dad did um so it's I I think it's very handsome but it is covered with
vegetation in in the summer um so anyway I again you didn't ask for that but what I guess I would like to ask you directly right now is would you still like us to table this based on the discussion or would you like us to act tonight I I I personally would feel
better if we tabled it because I feel I need to um again really uh get into some of the the nitty-gritty and try and understand uh because I uh okay you know to be honest with the the DNR
letter I think just got a number of issues with it but it's seems um anyway um I I don't sitting here today I couldn't give you facts chapter verse so I'd rather table it if that's okay and hearing that I
would uh I think we've if we as a board think that that's reasonable um I would I certainly think so one of you make that motion if you feel it's appropriate I move we table
this variance request as requested by the applicant to the next scheduled meeting to the next scheduled meeting yes I would second that motion we've got a motion in a second uh all in favor I hi opposed
hearing none your motion table so back in April that'll be April 9th 9th y thank you very much okay thank you for your consideration I think I'm sure I am so
um Carolyn and Kai sax strip um 2025 5V right thank you Mr chair this is a variance request for after the fact relief from the Cook County zoning ordinance to place 140 squ ft SAA within the bluff Impact Zone and at a reduced
top of bluff setback where a minimum setback of 30 ft is required as well as a reduced Shoreline setback of 38 ft where a minimum of 40t is required at 4236 Cascade Beach Road the applicant's property includes 1.80 Acres with
approximately 352 ft of lakes SP Shoreline the parcel is contained entirely within the single family residential Zone District zoning requirements for newly created Lots on Lake Superior must be 1 acre in size and 200 ft wide this is a conforming parcel
and Lake Superior is classified as a general development Lake and its development standards are outlined in the NorthShore management plan and adopted in article 8 of The Cook County zoning ordinance Mr and Mrs saxop are requesting after the factor Lea to allow the unpermitted sauna to remain within
the bluff Impact Zone and Shoreline setbacks along Lake Superior the 140t sauna was placed by their contractor in 2023 within the bluff Impact Zone 14 ft from the top of bluff the sauna also encroaches within the shoreline setback
38 ft from the vegetation line in the packet I included a diagram that reminds uh viewers of about the bluff Impact Zone being that area that's the first 20 ft from the top of bluff in which case no structures are to be
allowed within the bluff Impact Zone and that General structure setback requirement is 30 ft from top of bluff the applicants have provided a survey that's very helpful to understand some of these features on their property staff tried to provide a little um
annotation on top of that survey so the red line on that survey diagram is indicating the top of bluff the orange line is indicating the 30ft top of bluff structure setback and then the green line is marking the bluff Impact Zone so the first 20 ft from top of bluff and
you'll see the the sauna is with the uh top of bluff line kind of Crossing through the center of it there for backgrounds the property currently has a house shed and SAA the property is in a residential area along
Cascade Beach Road I included photos in your packet on page 133 you can see coming down off of cascade Beach Road towards the driveway the house and then the sauna in the Middle with a wood shed um over on the right and then the photo
on the bottom of that page showing the sauna relative to the Shoreline and the house for site conditions and considerations the septic is uh service the property and the survey shows the treatment area is located in the northeast corner of the parcel by the
road imp previous surface coverage uh the parcel development is within the allowable 25% imp previous surface coverage allowance wetlands are not an issue driving the need for the variance the parcel has a steep Bluff along the shoreline uh Shoreline Health the survey
indicates an undermined Bank indicating erosion is occurring along the bluff Bas for other the application indicates that the landscape of this lot is irregular and causes the need for the variance the landscape of the slot is a more natural rugged terrain however it is also
typical for Northshore landscape and is often addressed through the use of decks patios footings and foot paths the sauna was built on peers and could feasibly be placed Elsewhere on the property with uneven terrain no land use permits are required for accessory structures less
than 161 Square fet provided they meet setbacks just a note to the relocation statement about the SAA the applicants did inform me that because of the construction of the SAA would need to be U pretty much fully dismantled in order to be relocated it couldn't just be picked up and
moved um for more uh have some photos it's very picturesque sauna so there's some nice you know it was very beautiful and I have some nice photos of it um onite it was very perfect picture taking day when I was out there um some aerial
imagery that we have access to shows the differences on the lot between 2018 and 2024 so the photo on the right is the 2018 and then um as the applicants explain in their application uh there's been some wind damage that removed some
trees and they chose a place of SAA in a location where some tree uh removal naturally occurred for public noticing the application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on February 14th 12 letters of notification were sent to
adjacent Property Owners as well as County departments and the DNR hydrologist no written comments were received from adjoining property owners during the written comment period Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District provided a technical memo that explains the Shoreland vegetation changes over time at this property and
the removal of most of the trees and shrubs on the bluff the S swcd sites resources for the land owners to consider to improve their Shoreline the DNR area hydrologist provided a technical memo outlining their review of the variance request relative to the Practical difficulty standards the DNR
recommends denial the variance based off of three reasons or four reasons number one there's no unique circumstances associated with the property and the variance request is needed for personal matters uh number two the variance is not reasonable given the purpose of the setback requirements stating that the
applicant hasn't demonstrated why it's necessary to build so close to the bluff a significant deviation from regulations when there's other Alternatives that don't require variance number three the variance will alter the essential character loc loc essential character of the area citing the lack of screening
from vegetation and accelerated storm water flow of the bluff and number four the DNR finds a primary reason for the Varian is a design preference and approval of the variance would be arbitrary and cacious for staff consideration for
facts and findings off of the variance questions number one the Cook County zoning ordinance requires a 40ft setb from Lake Superior the applicant is requesting a 38t from the setback and the zoning ordinance requires a setback from the top of bluff to be 30 ft and no
structures be allowed within the bluff Impact Zone the structure is fully within the structure setback area being 14 ft from the top of the bluff encroaching 6 ft into the bluff Impact Zone I also provided some citations of the K count land use guide plan for reference second question the proposed
use of the property is allowed in the land use District in which the property is located the parcel is Zone single family residential the property includes 1.80 Acres with approximately 352 ft of Lake spor Shoreline residential uses are permitted in this Zone
District the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted within the Cook County zoning ordinance the Cook County zoning ordinance does not include Provisions that allow water oriented accessory structures to be placed with a Shore Bluff setbacks accessory structures are allowed on properties
provided the structur is placed meeting all structure setbacks and meeting the provisions outlined in the Cook County zoning ordinance the structure was placed fully within the bluff setback area and within the bluff Impact Zone alternative locations on the property could serve to place a structure that would allow
reasonable use and enjoyment with much less or no variance relief required reasonableness can also be evaluated by considering both the size of the structure and extent of the variance requested in this case the entire sauna is within the bluff setback and significantly encroaches into the setback area the proposed property owner
or 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 application indicates that the location of the sauna was chosen due to the undulating hilly Topography of the area and accessibility of the building the applicants indicated that they plans
to add a garage and a shed which further limits options for SAA site a practical difficulty cannot be landowner created a variance to Grant encroachment into the bluff cannot be granted for the reason that other space on the property is being prioritized and set aside for future development uneven Topography is
common in Cook County land owners often achieve this through the use of platform decking or fill materials as the existing SAA utilized in its existing non-conforming location removal of trees and regrading soil is is an acceptable means in building and trying to avoid
that is not a practical difficulty the application indicates that the building site was chosen in part due to storm moving trees which cleared an area for building the convenience of a clearing location occurring naturally is not a valid practical difficulty Land Development often requires the removal of trees to build in conforming
locations from the staff's perspective the application has not demonstrated a valid practical difficulty because it's not unique to the property and his landowner created staff do not identify a valid practical difficulty necessitating the need for the variance the DNR finds that the facts uh do not
support a valid practical difficulty being present and identify the main need for the variance is landowner design preference the area is zon single family residential the sauna is clearly visible from the road in lak Shore however given the structure small size it is unlikely to would alter the essential character of the
locality and the relocation of the structure to a conforming location would likely require some economic burden to the property owners however this burden cannot be the only reason to Grant the variance request for staff recommendations for consideration staff agrees with the findings of the DNR that
the facts of this case did not present a sufficient practical difficulty to justify the variance after reviewing the application materials staff have not identified a valid practical difficulty Land Development typically involves activities such as tree removal grading or filling to level building areas and
walkways and using decks patios or pavers to create walkways given these methods and others it seems feasible to find alternatives of locations for this accessory structure that would meet the required setbacks the application mentions further future building plans for a garage and toolshed however a
variance cannot be granted based on a practical difficulty created by a property owner considering the conforming size of the property in the relatively small size of the structure staff do not find it reasonable to Grant a variance for the reasons outlined in the application with the appropriate Land Development practices the
challenges posed by uneven terrain can be addressed allowing for the structure to be located in a conforming building location and then I also included um some ideas from the DNR should you find uh findings that would support an approval of the variance um the DNR
listed out some considerations for potential um conditions of approval thank you Nea um with the owners would you like um state your name and address and add anything to the narrative if you'd like sure Carolyn
srip and K uh 28 St albin's Road West in Hopkins um that is our current permanent address we hope someday that our permanent address will be up here um right now we are seasonal um but um would just add in
this and I did say this to Nea last week um in that we are we try to be good Community citizens it is not typical for us to come asking forgiveness uh rather than permission we're more permission people intend to be that um and uh uh
did not get do not come here having intended to did not build the sauna having intended to be in violation so um we did as noted choose the site after some trees blew down because we're we're
trying our very best to not remove any trees um we love trees and uh worked with a local contractor who said as long as you're under 140 ft you don't need a permit and we just need to be within 40 ft of the vegetation line which we tried
to be um got a survey done after all of that when we started thinking about the garage um and learned through that survey process that we were actually at 38 ft according to that survey process um do you want to add natur sure
there's there's much to add I mean I think appreciate the if you're sitting here and listening to this I think this is the first time for us to go through something like this so I think understand the process but I I don't know if there's much to add yeah we've learned a lot we appreciate the work that you do and thank you for your
consideration uh anyone from from the public wish to speak on this not hear any uh we're going to close it to the public and discuss it as a board who's ready to start
yeah um I can start I did a um a site visit uh I concur with staff in terms of um you built a very nice looking building and it's uh well done but it also have the uh fact that um
um the when I was walking there earlier this afternoon walking towards the bluff um I made it a point not to go to the edge because uh um the I could tell just by looking at it there there's erosion occurring under and there's going to be
a collapse in time just the nature of uh of the lake and water and ice and its impacts uh which is the reason we have the Bluffs i' I've seen uh on on other variances that we've looked at where I've gone up and there actually had already been a Collapse by the time I
got there um in in certain circumstances so the the concern is you know for the protection of the lake your property its value all the other things that is is in incorporated into the law um this is a
uh um you know we're not we're not talking about a couple feet here right the whole building is located inside the bluff Impact Zone um I concur with staff that there are other locations um all of us have built up here uh
um so we're we're very familiar with the the challenges and as I looked around there was it was clear that there were spaces that could be used um even uh you know with the you know like snow storage right I I just get my snow blower out
and keep throwing it on top of the pile right where I can put it and it's just the nature of living up here um the um the I the just in general not in favor of the
variance because the uh the Practical use uh just doesn't qualify in my mind or the Practical difficulty excuse me I stated that I also made a sight visit um I would agree that I think practical difficulty is the issue here um because
there's so so much other buildable area like Brad said um I guess I will make a make the point to just wax philosophical here for a minute if it's not out of line I do think it's it's difficult to find fault with the
property owner if there's no permitting process to alert you to the fact that you're not in the setback or that you're out of the setback rather you know what I mean that if you don't go through the process and then you find out after the fact that you're in the bluff setback which I
think is a particularly Hard One to know as a l a person you know you understand a sidey guard setback you understand a road setback even those are clear and easy to measure a bluff setback I feel like is a lot more Technical and a lot more difficult to determine so if we're not holding someone through a permitting
process to verify the location of their building I do take some issue with that I don't I don't think that undermines the issue that it's built on a bluff that could collapse and we have to deal with that but I don't I don't like that as a process you know with everything
you that puts people in a difficult position to have built something that yeah you have to have some technical knowledge to know you didn't have you couldn't build there so I just want to make that point for the record I find that difficult uh as a property
owner as a county citizen don't really think there's much that I can add other than it is absolutely beautiful and stunning and it would be I mean it's a great view but what I feel
with that bluff being right there with the erosion it's it's it's way too way too close yeah um Mr chair I walk by this site three times a week maybe five times a week depending on when it is because I
walk Cascade Beach Road a lot and unfortunately I watched it get built and kind of scratched my head a little bit as to if the permitting process was correct but anyways and to me that's a phone call away to which is what I always tell
people if you don't if you aren't sure make a call um and I I would agree with what's been said there's a lot of room on the site it could go other places and um I think DNR made a fairly strong
argument as to why it shouldn't be there because it is you know we're we're talking for a variance of over 50% on the setback so seems Seems seems it it feels too large
yeah I think um just for for clarification we should go through our our findings of facts um so first question is is the variance consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use guide plan and in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of cook count aing ordinance and other Cook County official controls um how do you guys feel about that I think no I mean I think that's the first uh reference of the bluff Impact Zone right
there uh the pro is the proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use District in which the property is located yeah I I think the the use is allowed yes we just really looking at the location uh the property owner is proposing to
use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Cook County Zing ordinance um well it is permitted as long as you meet the setback requirements yeah uh property owner has established that the Practical difficulty involved
is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner so no that's the that's the one right there uh approving the variance M will approving the variance maintain the essential character of the
locality it would I think read yeah um has the property owner established that the Practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone no I I think it was more than economic I don't know that economic really was even
discussed I think it was the the trees and wanting to remove other vegetation right I perfectly well understand their motives why we just ran into this
circumstance of um practical difficulty I would uh look for a motion Mr Mr chair I'll make a motion to deny their variance request do we have a second I'll second okay we have a motion
and a second um any more discussion all in favor I I I opposed hearing none patient go Motion to adjourn motion to adjourn May I'll make a motion to adjourn I will
second that all in favor I hi I thank you it's glad we have a second meeting plan now yeah what yeah I had a choice to make whether we Tred