I will. This was pertaining to AB. >> All right. Um, >> we're going to go in order this time with the meeting minutes. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. Okay. So, u do I have a move a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the 12th of November
meeting? >> Uh, just the minutes. I'm >> sorry. >> Just the minutes. >> Just the minutes. >> Um, I'd make a motion to approve the minutes. I'll second. All in favor? >> I I
none opposed. Thank you. Meeting minutes are approved. Moving on to new business. The election of a chair for the board of adjustment. Um, do you have a nomination? >> Which are we doing?
>> I would chair >> nominate Brad as chair. Brad, someone's been nominated. Any other nominations? No. All in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed.
None heard. New chair. Nom. Election of the vice chair. Do we have a nomination for election of vice chair? >> Nominate Paul Stucker. >> Paul Stucker has been nominated. Any others?
Hearing none. All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Thank you. >> So, um staff, we're moving into the vertical bridge discussion on the variance request to proceed.
>> All right. Procedurally speaking, I've covered a lot of facts and I will do my best to be concise and not too long-winded because this is its own type of request. So, just close your eyes while I zoom. There we go. All right. Vertical bridge
variance. Uh, this variance is a request for relief from the Cook County Tower ordinance section 6.01D1 01D1 to place a wireless telecommunication tower facility support structure and security fencing on parcel 20-230-3300 within 1,000 ft of two neighboring
residential structures. The property is 58.61 acres entirely within the F1 zone district and zone shoreland within the Northshore management zone. The variance request is requesting relief from a 835
ft setback to the residential structure to the south and 572 ft from the compound perimeter to a newly constructed residential structure to the northeast. The original conditional use permit was approved by the Cook County Board of Commissioners on December 3rd, 2024. This variance request is submitted
in conjunction with an amendment to that conditional use permit which proposes a relocation of the previously approved tower site within the same subject parcel. The original conditional use permit was approved by the Cook County Board of Commissioners uh with the authorized construction as 195 ft self-supporting lattice tower with a 4ft
lightning rod and pcel privately owned by Richard and Lorie Evans of Next to Caribou LLC with a 50-year lease agreement in place with vertical bridge as explained in the application. As part of the approval, the Cook County Board of Commissioners included four conditions of approval, which includes
the driveway access complies with State Wetland Conservation Act and secures necessary grade bill permits through Cook County Estate SWIP should the total soil disturbance exceed 1 acre. While discussing the site with Mitch Travis, the Cook County wetland specialist, it discover was discovered that proposed
access for the tower site crosses through wetland areas and the lease compound is situated within one as well. The requested conditional use permit amendment in this variance were initiated due to the presence of wetlands on the property and the requirement of the wetland conservation act which directs applicants to avoid and minimize wetland impacts were
feasible. This new proposed location avoids direct wetland impacts and represents the least amount of wetland impacts feasible alternative on the site. However, the relocation results in the tower being situated within 1,000 ft of two residential structures, thereby triggering the need for the setback relief.
Uh on the screen there, I have the new proposed tower location um with a yellow line drawing between that tower location to yellow triangles kind of identifying each of the adjacent property owners residential structures that will be
discussed further in this request. And the red circle is the 1,00 ft radius where uh that's where the tower ordinance stipulates um the prescribed setback relief needed. Um the reason for the variance and conditional use permit
is the wetlands as I just identified. Uh so again that purple and the green this is from the wetlands delineation that was completed last year and um that's that. So for background, the project site is not located within a wireless
designated wireless telecommunication district. And as we previously discussed, the original CUP required a review um with the tower facilities request policy. And as part of that review, the planning commission and board of commissioners determined that the proposal met priority number one,
public safety, as outlined in appendix B of the Cook County Tower ordinance by improving wireless service coverage along the Highway 61 corridor. The ordinance citation relative to this variance request comes from the tower ordinance. This sets the standards for new tower construction. It states that
wireless telecommunication tower facilities, including all support structures, security fencing, shall not be located within 1,000 ft of any residence other than the residents on the parcel in which the tower is located. A lesser setback shall be allowed to a neighboring residence provided the owners of all residential
dwellings located less than 1,000 ft from the telecommunication tower facility. Sign a release allowing the facility to be located at setback of less than 1,000 ft. But any resulting setback shall not be less than 500 ft. So just to clarify that this tower is meeting that very minimum of 500 ft
that's outlined, but that's where that variance relief is needed because there is not a signed letter from the adjacent property owners allowing that setback relief. Um this is uh highlights I did but the site plan from the application again showing um the processing was a little
strange as we originally received the tower amendment last summer was when we also realized there had been a land use permit for the Kamach properties residential structure. It had not been built yet when we first received this application for the cup amendment. It initially was just from the Mckver
property. Um and so we had that's part of why we had those delays that I earlier referenced um that this got noticed and then delayed because we realized that there was a new structure being built and then it reached a status of being substantially built um to just enough of the effect to require
setbacks. So this was a little bit of a a two properties being developed at the same time with uh relational setbacks. Uh so we've been managing this as best we can to be fair to all parties involved. Um again the photo simulations these are the exact same slides you had
at the cup amendment public hearing but just for refresher these are from the applications again um for site conditions and land ownership. Again the property is zoned F1 single family residential along that highway 61 corridor. This is the same set of
information that was in the cup amendment. Um relationally speaking most of the land on the Lake County side is public. some of the private lands along Highway 61 there. And then within Cook County, it's mostly private land. Um,
and there's some homesteaded parcels um and a lot of non-homesteaded parcels. And um we talked about the fall zone requirements and I um I'm hoping that everybody is okay with us adopting a lot of that similar discussion we just had.
So I do not need to repeat it verbatim. Um but this is the same set of information primarily. Um again the height of the tower is 199 ft. The tower is identified uh being 163.8 ft to the nearest property line which is the Kamach property to the north. Uh the
application does include the fall zone letters signed by professional engineer which states that the tower is designed to fall within the radius of 155 ft uh which is in the property boundaries of the subject parcel. And again in your packet is a letter from the Cook County MIS department with some um more
technical communication about what that tower letter means. Um and again for the wetlands so we talked about this a bit at the cup amendment hearing. Um so this you know this option B drawing was put out by Mitch Travis more as a very high
level concept discussion as to where else on the property could this tower go. Um, so strictly from a wetland permitting perspective, option B would be suitable if there were no other approvals to allow it to be built um, in this location. Um, but as was probably
pointed out, the CUP amendment, if the variance is denied for this location that's avoiding wetland impacts, then the original CUP location could also be considered unsuitable and would meet sequencing. Um, let's see what else you would like me to cover.
um details about the residential structures. So um as explained in the application, the proposed location of the tower is approximately 573 ft from a proposed structure located to the KACH property and 831 ft to the nearest residential structure on the Mckver
property to the south. Uh this structure on your screen is from the Cook County Assessor's photos of the McKver property. Uh this uh this parcel is a 5 acre parcel non-homesteaded zone single family residential. Uh the assessor's records indicate that this residential
structure is a manufactured home built in 1989. The Kamach property um located 572 feet from the compound perimeter to the northeast. uh 178 acre parcel uh where this structure is located is also non-h
homesteaded zoned F1. This structure was permitted to be built with an approved land use permit on July 3rd, 2025. The land use permit currently identifies the structure as a house with deck to be served by a porta potty and no pressurized water. Assessor records indicate there is a start of a timber
frame cabin roof over post 10x6 built in 2025. Concurrently, while reviewing the land use permit for the Kamach property, land services received the first version of the CUP amendment application and variance from the Macka residential structure. Staff have worked with the applicants since then to complete the
wetlands delineation and update the application to include the setback from the KMACH residential structure. The KMACH structure shown on the screen was not built nor permitted during the original CUP application process. for public noticing. This version of the
application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on January 16th, 2026. 21 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners on December 23rd, 2025, as well as county departments in Shorter Township. Five written comments were received from adjoining property owners and the US Forest Service during written comment
period. Kenneth McKver concerned with decreased property values and other concerns. Doug Kamak opposed to the location noticed in the variance in CUP amendment. Trisha Sacket opposed to the request feels the tower will detract from the natural beauty of the landscape and is outside the communication district. Concerned about lighting at night, opposed deviations from tower
ordinance once tower located further inland or elsewhere. If permitted, a strict adherence to lighting and material restrictions. Paul and Patricia Renias opposed to the request expressed concerns related to health and safety and property value decrease. Robert Burrow opposed to the request due to visibility, property values. and US
Forest Service uh the standard abudding federal property remind property owners to stay within the private property boundaries and not to encroach a trespass on federal lands. The uh findings again so this is this is a variance request. So this the findings and fact that the board of adjustment is
reviewing is completely distinct from the cup amendment considerations that were just discussed. So the the draft version of facts and findings for the board to at least begin talking about and amend through your public hearing and discussions are as follows. Uh first
it's citing the tower ordinance with a potential finding saying that the tower is requesting a setback relief of 835 ft from the tower to a residential structure to the south and 572 feet to the compound perimeter to a newly constructed residential structure to the northeast. Neither residential structure
is homesteaded. The tower is maintaining the minimum required setback of 500 feet. There is some uh land use guide plan goals about uh protection of non-compatible uses from one another and redevelopment of lands. Um, there is a
Cook County natural features and environmental concerns goal to maintain and enhance the quality of natural resources and native ecosystems within the county with a policy that states evaluate and minimize adverse impacts on air quality, surface and ground waters, wildlife habitat, ecological systems,
and other natural features through land use decisions. And then the administrative and intergovernmental goal to integrate land use concerns into all appropriate ongoing administrative actions with a policy that states land use related decisions shall recognize the need to duly consider rights and responsibilities of the greater public
good uh general public good with corresponding rights and responsibilities of the individual. Uh the proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use district in where the property is located. The parcels contained entirely within the F1 zone district. The proposed use was
approved through an original conditional use permit review 2024-8 CP with findings and conditions. The property owner is proposing the use in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Cook County zoning ordinance. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner consistent with the Cook County Tower ordinance through existing conditional
use permit 2024-8 CUP. Additionally, the identified need to address the telecommunications gap along Highway 61 as cited for the first responders, thereby creating a public safety telecommunications benefit. 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 applicant obtained a wetlands lineation that has been reviewed and approved and collaborated with the wetland technical evaluation panel to assess alternative sites for the Wacka memo dated 125 or
12126 by Wacka LGU Mitch Travis. This variance request results from existing wetlands on the parcel and efforts to comply with the wetland conservation act and recent development on the neighboring property. Wetland sequencing requirements as outlined in the wetland conservation act require projects to
first try to avoid and minimize wetland impacts where possible. Approving the variance alter the essential or maintain the essential character locality. The application includes photo simulations of the tower as viewed from Highway 61. The tower will be visible from Highway
61, but mature tree forest in the area will minimize the visibility. Other towers are located along Highway 61 and the property owner's established practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone. Economic considerations are not the I should say the sole reason for the variance
request. Obviously, purchase of wetland credits is an economic consideration. Uh staff recommendation for consideration. Staff recommend the board of adjustment hold a public hearing and consider all the facts relative to this request. The crossing of the wetland would be a substantial amount of wetland impacts
which are generally avoided if possible. If approved, the following conditions may be attached to this variance request. Number one, the tower shall be placed in accordance with the application materials provided in the February 11th, 2026 board of adjustment packet. And number two, all wetland impacts must be reviewed and approved by
the WAC LGU before construction. That's all I have, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, thank you for that. The open uh the applicant like to >> Yeah. Could you put up slide 48, please?
I wanted to address one of the items. >> I can't read the numbers. So, you >> you were you were back. Keep going further. >> No, other way. I'm sorry. >> Towards the findings. >> Yeah. >> Okay. that one. >> Okay. One of the items that was
addressed and we addressed with the the TE the wetland wetland sequencing requirements as outlined in the wetland that conservation act require projects to try first to avoid and minimize wetland impacts where possible. Keeping
the tower in the original location does none of that. And that was something that was discussed with the the TEP that the the alternative locations that we showed on option B and option A that had the the two sites closer to the
front were the attempts to mitigate that that concern. If we were just to stay in that existing location that was approved in 2024, that's not meeting that requirement at all. And so that's that's where we have
a hardship in that yes, there is the financial aspect of purchasing the the sequencing, but that's not the real reason. It's we're staying in that wetland area by not moving the tower. And we were given suggestions on a
couple different locations where we would meet that option B and option A with the the two fingers um were the options that we were presented with. and explored. So it it's not a financial um discussion. It's it's
about the the sequencing and not trying to first avoid the wetlands. We are smack dab in the middle of the wetlands and without moving the tower, we're not trying to move or to avoid the mitigation. >> Yeah, I understand. Um,
this is one where it's it's um, I'll take a note on that myself and want to skip over going to uh, starting a conversation with you and I and not going to public comment. Before we do that, anything else you'd like to add? No, I I mean we've talked about all the
other points in the the plan commission, but you know, same things hold. >> Okay. >> I'd be happy to answer questions. Does >> the board have any questions? >> Do we have to open up to the public first?
>> I'm sorry. >> With the applicant. >> Oh, >> okay. We'll open it to public comment. I'd ask that everyone um when they go to make a comment that um there's no need
to repeat what you told us in the previous meeting. >> Do you want to go? >> All right. Uh I'll try not to repeat, but I you know, it's been a while now, so I hope you didn't forget all the things that I said before. Uh Doug Kak 9437 Highway 61 home is in St. Paul. Uh
couple things. Um, I want to clear up the whole recently constructed. This was a timber frame. We did the timber framing class at North House August of 24. And so it means I signed up for that
class about two years ago. Um, did the timber frame. Uh, sat right over there and said we were going to have a structure. Somebody saw it. So that started a long conversation with the county. um of what we were going to do and what we needed a permit for and what
we did not. So to say it's been a recent construction to me, I've been constructing this for a year and a half now and it just recently became erect set, you know, set it up and and we had a bunch of people up there. Um, and so I
went through the whole process to get my land use permit and it was a lot of conversation of what we're going to have there and um, so what kind of how do we classify that? So I just wanted to clear that up. Uh, a couple problems with the
um the practical difficulties. um first that it's not there not due to the owner and I'll remind you that's not the owner. >> That's a lease holder. The owner never
signed the application. So I don't know if that creates a legal problem or not, but to me any they have to abide by all the rules then um because any problems were created earlier. Um, but they clearly chose a
site. They picked the site and it was within that permitted permitted area. And then the only other thing is obviously the the economic considerations and he and he talked about the cost there and the shorter driveway, less lend mitigations. To me,
it's clearly a cheaper option and they're looking for a cheaper way and then that infringes on me. And I talked about the adverse effect if it goes there if if it violates or if you if they give gets a variance.
I'll I will probably never build my retirement home there. Um and I don't know if that's they but it will it will change what I do. I will never retire there. I will um have a little cabin there. Um but I don't want to be in the
shadow of a of a cell tower there. And as you saw in the picture, that forest there is that decadent birch forest and it's very visible from from that area. So the there's lots of birch that are down and it's open and turning to grassland. So tenth of a mile seems like
a long way to him. It's very visible to me. So thank you. >> Thank you. Um, board of adjustment, thank you for being patient with us tonight and appreciate your interest. And those of you that are
watching live or will see this in archive, it's important to have all the data. Um, m Mr. Chairman, may I readress my remarks from the previous planning meeting or refer them the viewers to that? >> I would refer the viewers to that. You know, part of it is is just uh in the
interest of everybody's time. >> Okay. Uh viewers, >> carefully to your points. >> You ref referred to my points one and two in the planning commission meeting earlier before this meeting in the archives. Um I am Paul Renison of 9380
West Highway 61. And I had three main points and you've been referred for points one and two. Those were loss of uh county property tax revenue and number two increased wildfire risk. You can go to the planning meeting for those. The third point was the towers as
proposed is obsolete. Um T-Mobile is now using 650 satellites and Starlink to fill the gaps outlined in the tower proposal. And that's important. There's a map in that tower proposal that shows the gaps and they
are filled by T satellite. the county public safety priority number one use by the county board which spent one hour on this issue debate and discussion before it referred back to this body that
county uh board of Cook County uh put priority number one use requirements are met without the tower by T satellite. So, the public safety gaps of Highway 61 are solved without the tower. And I want
to be clear on that, and that's important. I'll quote T-Mobile one more time for the record. Staying connected matters even in the most remote areas. With a constellation of 650 satellites, T- Satellite with Starlink helps keep Tife
and other popular apps working where traditional towers can't reach. T- satellite is now offered on even my simple cell phone for $10 a month. This gap filling technology solves the county board's communications concerns and is
in use today. And I'm going to read just to clarify since I didn't have a rebuttal opportunity in the previous meeting. T- satellite part of the T-Mobile and SpaceX partnership. T-Sat plus Starlink provides directto cell servicing by
utilizing specialized downward-facing net and antennas on low earth orbit satellites. Unlike conventional angled dishes, these satellites connect directly to mobile phones offering appear often appearing as T-Mobile
SpaceX or TAT plus Starite on user devices. techn technology uses phased array technology allowing the satellites to steer beams toward the earth's surface rather than needing a side looking fixed orientation. Service capability designed for emergency
messaging and direct to phone voice data using a straight down view to cover areas without ground infrastructure performance. These satellites can be seen in photos as straight white lines because they are navigating across the sky while maintaining a downward
scanning beam for users. This means the system functions with standard mobile devices requiring no physical adjustments unlike the self-aligning consumer starlink dishes which often orient toward the sky. In closing, I want to again state that
the county and the recommendation of the board of adjustment should be to withdraw approval of the proposed tower and the proposed variance obviously as obsolete and a wildfire danger and will cost the county property tax revenue and
T-Mobile and T- satellite have solved the problem. I think we need to move forward. Thank you for your time. Any other public comment? Okay, thank you. Please state your name and address. >> Yes, my name is Richard Furlong. Uh my
address is 2390 County Road 7, but I'm actually here to speak on Mr. uh on behalf of Mr. Doug Kamach um as his attorney. Um I think that uh the board of adjustment really in this variance request is being asked to answer one simple question. Is there a practical
difficulty on this lot that prevents the tower company from building the tower where they'd like to do it? Simply, I think the answer is no. We're not looking at a 100 foot wide by 150 ft deep piece of shoreland where there is too much setback on every side to build
a lot or to build a home. That is an obvious practical difficulty that the property owner did not create. In this case, the tower company has selected a location within 200 feet of the property line with a more than 200 foot tower
and chosen to place it within 600 ft of my client's home and more than less than 1,000 ft of another neighboring property. The tower ordinance already allows for one or both of those neighbors to permit that tower to be within a thousand feet. One of them has
said they would do so. They've asked, of course, as I think a sensible person would, for compensation for that agreement. As far as I'm aware, no compensation has been offered, making that clearly a financial decision. I believe there are
locations on that map that have just as much maybe slightly more impact on wetlands that would be more than a thousand ft for my client's property and within the thousand ft of the McKver property who has already said that he would sign that what is basically a private variance request um if he were
compensated for it which I think is appropriate. Um, th this this fall tower letter and the follow-up letter from I don't know if it was MIS or MSI, I think, is also something that should be considered. The tower ordinance requires an engineering
report, not an engineering letter written by an engineer hired by the company. I write letters on behalf of my clients all the time. I can tell you that those letters are very one-sided and favor the client that they're written for. And I think the same is probably true here. There isn't a engineering report that I've seen um
that definitively states that this tower, which is 199 ft, will crumple down to 155 and then fall with 168 ft or 163.8 ft. They're leaving themselves less than 10 ft of fall room from their
tower to my client's property line. If that tower fails to crumple as they think it might, not as they've proved it will, it's going to fall onto my client's property by at least 30 plus feet. Yes, he has decided to build a house close to his property line. It's his
decision to do so. The county has approved him to do so. But in this case, no matter where they put this tower on this property, after my communications with Mitch Travis, a wetland delineation and sequencing is going to be required. They're going to have to purchase wetland credits no matter where they put
this thing. They are choosing instead to put it in a location where they need this variance. The wetlands exist everywhere. They're going to need the wetland credits. The question is how many? Again, leading us back to this idea of this being a financial decision and not a result of this practical
difficulty they're coming up with. Uh board member Lee mentioned, I thought it was an astronomical number of $35,000 an acre for your wetland credits to build a driveway. Again, economic. It's a lot of money, but it is possible. They could
absolutely build where the CUP already says they can. We already we already established that definitively. They could build it there. There's nothing that prevents them from doing so. They're using the whacka language in my opinion to get around this and to put the burden instead of on their pocketbook on the neighboring land
owners. Um I think that there is perhaps it's something in the ordinance that I missed, but it is it talks about residences, not homestead residences. There are many members of this community that own properties all over the county that are not homesteaded because they own multiple different properties. Um
whether it be at Gunflint Lake or at Greenwood Lake or wherever else it might be, those properties aren't homesteaded. Are those community members and their second cabins any less valuable than anyone else that has their property homesteaded? I hope not. But at the end of the day, this thing
certainly seems to me to be an economic decision. There were um when they went from the original cup to the cup amendment, there were many instances throughout their report where they just failed to correct or to update the uh documents. They did not provide any
pictures from the north of where this tower was going to be. right by where the Superior Hiking Trail crosses. There were many corners as far as I can tell that were cut in producing this uh request and all of them point back to economic decisions and uh accountability
there. So, um I think that on Mr. Kamach's behalf, I'd ask that you deny the variance and uh the tower company can continue with the permit that they already have. Thank you. Thank you. >> Any additional comments from the public?
I'd like to respond if you'd like. >> Yeah. Okay. Closing comments from the public. Uh sir, would you like to respond? Go ahead. >> Okay. Um so
I I think mostly I would like to respond to Mr. Furlong's assertions. Um, as I mentioned at the start, you know, that the sequencing it's it's not about the financial. It's about the fact that the tower is smack dab in the middle of a
wetlands area. And we were required to to uh look at alternative locations as a potential to mitigate. And that is exactly what we did. It wasn't just, well, it's going to cost X, Y, and Z, so
yeah, we're going to go there. Um, you know, so that that's very important that it's it's not an economic issue. Um, it it's about the the fact that there's wetlands there and the the tower is not situated in a good location.
Um, now as far he had mentioned also that the tower is 200 over 200 feet. That is not correct. It's 195 foot with an a 4 foot lightning rod. And the the significance of that is anything over
200 feet or in very close proximity to an airport must be lit. So by staying at the 199 ft, this tower will not be lit. So it will also um you know blend into the area. Now as far as uh Mr. McKver.
Um, yes, I did have conversations with him and that was before we knew about um the Kamach property. Um, I was I was working with him, but he wasn't realistic in what he was asking. We we
did offer him a a certain amount and he went exponentially higher. That was not rational to to solve a problem. Um, I did contact Miss Maxwell at that point and I said, you know, I do have concerns
about the way your ordinance is worded and I mentioned this in the plan commission that it gives the property owners an unrealistic um level of authority to get a site denied based on this um signing of the
letter. that that really puts them in almost a a quasi judicial position. They they're almost equal in footing to the the county board in that they're the ones that ultimately will decide whether to approve or deny the conditional use
permit. And by having them provide the letter, it put Mr. McKver in the catird seat to ask for an astronomical amount of money that was unrealistic. So I I did not speak to Mr. mock at that point
because we I had notified him or he I believe he had emailed me when we were filing the application and I had sent him a response. Um he did not ask for you know hey you know we'll sign off on this or or anything like that. So we did
not discuss it um at that point. And the um Mr. Furlong also he he says that the engineering report is not you know something you guys should believe but the fact of the matter is I supplemented in the addendum
with the actual tower drawings and the structural analysis that was done. It's not something that was just some junior engineer sitting at his desk writing a letter, you know, like not not trying to berate an attorney, but sometimes attorneys will write a letter to someone
to cease and desist something on behalf of someone to >> to show that they've got authority. That's not the case. This was a signed uh certified letter by a registered licensed engineer in the state of Minnesota based on the the tower
drawings. So it's not something that was just thrown out there as >> you have seen we have the entire engineering design document. >> Um and again it gets back into the um throwing the burden onto the residents.
I don't believe there's been any proof that there is an economic burden on them. Uh there they haven't proven that there's any economic uh property loss. um you know it it's one of those that I
it's a perceived it's not a factual statement. Um and as far as the photos from the hiking trail that was discussed during the original um we did not take we we tried to do one set from behind the hiking trail down to the original
location but it it really didn't show anything. So, um, I did additional research after the the plan commission meeting and we looked at alternative locations potentially up there. That was something that the the plan commission and the the county board had asked us to
do. So, we've done all our homework uh that was requested of us. Um, so I just wanted to point those things out. Um, and again, Mr. Renias's statements about the the T-AT
and all that kind of u issues, the wildlife danger. I've I don't believe that fire danger is a major issue. Um and there was it's one of those that of course you
could potentially have a fire somewhere. It's you can't prevent everything, but towers don't typically just uh ignite. That's not common. Um, I believe that's pretty much the
rebuttal to the the comments. Um, I want to go back to and say, you know, the sequencing is what it is and I I believe relocating the tower is a part of that sequencing. It it's it's something that
we were suggested that we need to do. >> So, the um that any board members got questions or applicant. >> No, thank you. Okay, closing the public
comment. Um discussion amongst the board. So, a couple of the things that I'm, you know, one of the things that when we got on this board, we get to do is is look at things that people want to do with their properties.
And each of us has property rights. We don't have property rights to other people's properties, but we've gone through and created ordinances where we get agreements about how we're going to operate together as neighbors. And that's how we've come up with all these things that we have.
And so we have to look at the things when people are required to color outside the lines. Now wetlands clearly drove a lot of the change in decisions and why the conditional use permit came back and this variance came back
and um you know I look at the map and this is the 100% solution okay of you know we've got the little mark down on the road we're crossing the trail already crosses over and then you stop at the wetlands that are there then
the option B that came in was the extreme opposite we go all the way around the property up and get over the top of the the wetlands. That's not a viable option either because you're cutting through wetlands all over the place and um it doesn't come across as mitigation.
Um uh we have to deal with what's in front of us and the options that are put in front of us. I think that um you know somebody like Mr. Lee would look at that and go, "Well, you could do this, this, and this, and you you'd have minimized and you'd get your tower in and you
wouldn't be running into those things." But we don't get to to examine those because that's not the case in front of us. So, um, the ordinance says 1,000 ft and it gives variance to 500 ft, no less.
So that's the ordinance or the legal language that we look at with regard to the T satellite communication systems that's been brought up since I'm kind of an IT security guy by trade. Um Verizon has less than 10 satellites up.
AT&T has none according to Ver uh T-Mobile site. This board has no authority to tell people what system to use. Okay? I can't go to any emergency service provider and tell them to use something else. And I thought about the
um the comment made back in the uh previous board about using pagers. After the Hall fire, there was different towers put up there for emergency services and that's what they're using. They're not using cell service. Um those towers don't exist down on the
west end. They were never put in. So, um, so I'm looking at the request here and, uh, in public comment, you know, that's one of those things where,
um, people like what they see, but it's somebody else's land. It's not yours. And that's that's how we have to look at what does the law say we can do and what we're permitted to do. and um understand that that's the construct under which we operate. All
right. Um those made general comments. I do agree we did look at the superior trail conversation back in 24. Um comments from the board discussions questions.
>> Um I have a question. So you don't actually own this property? No, we're >> the company's trying to lease it from the owners. >> We already have a lease agreement in place. >> Okay. And there's Did you guys do research on that
beforehand or what made you guys pick that property versus the one over the one above it or >> Okay. So, I can explain that. It's going to be a little history lesson. >> Oh, I just didn't know if there was a quick >> Yeah. So what happens is we're a
consulting firm and we are hired by Vertical Bridge who was in hired previously by T-Mobile to find a location and what they provide us with is what's called a search ring. It's usually half a mile radius plus or
minus. Um it gives us specific coordinates for the center of the search ring. um it tells us what the height we're looking for and then what we do is we do a zoning analysis um initially and
we did that. We then once we've done the zoning analysis of what what the county will and will not allow, we send out letters to uh all the property owners within that search ring that are zonable because there might be some residential
lots that are too small to to meet any requirements and whatnot. Um and so we sent out letters asking people if they'd be interested. And in this case, we had two potential candidates that were interested.
Um, I can't think of the gentleman's name. He was further back off the the beaten path a little bit. And he didn't have any of the the power and the fiber and the utilities that we needed. Plus, the access was kind of like that option B where it was impossible to get to his
property. So, we couldn't do that. Um, and then we spoke with Mr. Evans. he was interested and we proceeded from there to do the the lease agreement with him. We did not get anyone else that mentioned they were interested in
hosting a tower on their property. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And in the event that we did have multiple, which we did, uh Lamb was the the gentleman. Uh he owned quite a bit of land in the state of Minnesota was the other one in the the up by the
hiking trail. And um when we submit the candidates that we get to T-Mobile, they then their radio frequency engineer says this is where we need to be to fit within the network. So that's how we basically came to that property.
>> Thank you. Um so my next question would be to you. um a lease holder, not even the property owner, asking for a variance where it's coming into almost 50% of the recommended thousand ft where
it's not even the homeowners that are going to benefit from that to put that burden on another property. Is there anything in that with the variance where it's a lease owner that's trying to get the variance versus the actual property owner? >> I may, Mr. chair the
>> yes >> the property owner did like consent to these applications being processed so I do have written confirmation from them that they were okay with these applications as they were submitted so um it is often that there are agents
representing applications so from my perspective that is not much more different um I would just say for the board of adjustments consideration that we have had wetlands be identified as practice difficulties on other variances in the past so if that's not seen as a
practical difficulty. Just try to think through why that seems different in this case. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. >> I um realize I'm not the WACA consultant, nor am I the board of water
and soil resources in this setting, but I do have some experience with wetland wetland conservation act approximately 30 years. Um the sequencing process in my understanding you need to avoid wetland impacts where
possible or not possible you need to minimize those impacts and once you have minimized those impacts you need to mitigate for the losses because Minnesota has a no net loss policy on wetlands. So nowhere in Waca does it say
that you shall not impact a wetland. So there are looking and Courtney and I were looking at the wetland delineation map a while ago. There are a lot of other locations on this property that wacka rules will allow you to site
a tower and a road. It's going to cost you money for mitigation, but it costs money. >> We would not have any iron mines in the state of Minnesota if it was all avoidance.
>> Yeah. the the just in conversation, right? The option B to me looked like an extreme. >> Yeah, I think B option option B was an extreme of non-avvoidance. >> Yeah. >> The current option might be the
total minimization of impact. So there's somewhere in between, >> right? >> And because >> because of the way this was presented, there are some options. If I was the hired consultant on this project, I could give you a better opinion, but I'm
not gonna go there too much, okay? Because I don't do that work anymore. Um, but there but Wacka will allow um the applicant to sit down with the technical evaluation panel, the TAP, and work out some alternatives
and potentially whether we will potentially get 1,000 ft for both properties. I don't know. I mean, it would be interesting to see that map we had with the red circle and the yellow circle. And as you move that around, is there a
location that allows you to do this project without a variance for the property set or the resident setbacks? >> And and to answer your question, Mr. Lee, um the original location was based off of meeting that thousand foot. So it
it pretty much was in that location where we were I mean at the time Mr. Kamach didn't have anything on his property. So it was more McKvers but we we made sure that we're thousand ft back off. >> So yeah, you may have to go go back to
the drawing board and start moving those circles around and see what >> but we did have that meeting with the TE and that's what they they had recommended that we move it to one of these locations. Yeah, I just I'm I'm the you went
exactly where I I was going to ask for slide 48 back up again, please. >> That last sentence first try and avoid minimize where possible. Mhm. >> was was the line that that I zeroed in on. And this seems to be a 100% avoidance solution.
And um we don't need to go to the original, but but the um uh when I looked at the wetland delineation map and I I saw that there's a couple of spots that you know
the earlier discussion where Mr. Nelson was talking about go around and then where you have to or no it was Miss Maxwell go around or you know go through at the minimal spot um that it looked like it could be more centrally located on the property. I still don't know
you'd achieve 1,000 ft. >> I think you we still ended up uh there was one spot on the map and I can hold it up. I think you're referring to um like over here >> actually on the the more the higher
scale map more pulled out showed a couple of spots where you cut across a few >> a lot less wetland sitt here we're still with McKver's property so we still >> I understand that the the compromise is
is that um the the more centrally located >> this this was option or no that's option B originally >> helps but it seems like we went from you know the the tap probably goes with the
we're not touching the wetlands as their first assumption and then you know if someone's not in there advocating for a minimized approach to it um tendency to to select that and of course in the context of what you knew at time not
knowing about um you know the cabin going in you uh you know it was making some sense and and circumstances change but again that's a property owner exercising their property rights and so um you know circumstances that we have
that we've run into um >> any further discussion additional questions >> so I'm going to I'm going to ask the same question I asked at the planning commission. Um,
we did not change the cup. If we don't change the variance, where do we stand? >> If the variance is denied, >> yeah, >> because there's no varian variance is denied. >> Yeah. If this variance is denied, it would, you know, it's the original cup
that that remains unchanged. They would essentially have, I believe, the ability to purchase the wetland credits to per to build the tower in that original location, presuming that there's no issues with building a tower in a wetland structurally.
>> If if they chose a different location though that doesn't require a variance, that come back up as a cup or >> with a CUP amendment. >> Yeah. >> Uh I think that would be a discussion with the board of commissioners if this was denied for the variance. the CUP
amendment was noticed like in the actual like description of the cup amendment like a change in location >> that location you know might change it's the county is always a little bit we try to be as precise as you can be and consistent um
>> I think we would have to maybe talk about that a little bit >> as a matter of degree of how much of a change >> yeah so the need for the variance is that only because of the distance from the other two properties. That's the only
>> Yeah. >> that we're looking at. Correct. >> This variance is because it's within 1,000 ft >> from the residential structures. >> Okay. >> And um >> neither >> wetlands are pushing them the tower to stay out of wetlands which again this
board does review a lot of variances and wetlands and bluffs sight specific features are usually the things driving the need for variances. In this case, it's complex because the the setbacks you're using are um other people's items on other properties, which is different
than when we're looking at a setback from a property line or, you know, just seems a little different in that sense to me. >> But when we're looking at variances or when we're looking at what you said as wetlands being a um oh, why can't I
think of the word? >> Practical difficulty. >> Practical difficulty. Thank you. The majority actually every time that I can think of is because there is no other spot. Are we we're not able to suggest spots
but seeing other open spots. Is it our problem for them to get access to those spots? Is that a practical difficulty we need to be looking at? >> Not specifically. You're looking at the proposal before you and how it falls in line with the decision criteria.
>> Okay? >> If you can find compromise in a way that's suitable with the applicants, sometimes that's an option, but um it's not the board's job to find the sol like the alternative solution. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification. >> That's what I was saying. We have to
deal with the the applications as we have in it because I kind of went down the same road my first meeting. >> Yeah. to me I I mean I look at the practical difficulty and I I actually do take the good faith effort that you picked the the 100%
spot but I think we we are dealing with a more complex situation with neighbors and a and a big setback on a tower which I think is appropriate. Um so for me I think that we as chair Silman said that we have the two really
extreme ends of the the spectrum uh is not the best option as as I see it >> and I and I believe that there is a middle road and that we we can impact the wetlands and there's a reason to >> and to grant that >> minimally
>> minimally you know and to go through the process. Let me ask you this. Based on the conversation, it sounds like you're inclined to deny the request. What I would suggest is maybe we table this, go back and I'll talk to Vertical Bridge,
look at the other potential locations because I'm not sure that we're not going to be right back needing the variances again because I still think we're going to be between the two houses. were still going to be this close on each of them. So, by
tableabling it, it would give the the county board the opportunity to we could discuss that with them because I believe um in talking with staff that if we were to at the plan commission, if we were to
say, "Okay, we'll go to plan B, option B, you you guys could have approved it at that meeting." That's what I want to kind of leave open by tableabling it because if the county board says, you know, one thing or we come up with a a a
mutually agreeable solution, then we could readress the the variances, you know, whereas if you deny it, it's a quasi judicial decision and it it's done. So that's kind of where I'm I mean based
on everything that happened at the plan commission meeting and then this discussion I think that might be the most palatable way to do it. >> So are we tableabling or are they withdrawing matters? Yes. >> So just one thing real quick now the
tabled word has gotten out there. Keep in mind that once a motion to table happens there's not supposed to be any more discussion. So, nobody please make a motion immediately here so we can get this fleshed out. Pretty please. Um, procedurally speaking, um, we've got
this application to be making a decision by the end of this month, I believe, Mike. And so, well, I would need I would need something in writing like now, like tonight, to extend that. um because there are times case law with hearings where the applicant will extend it verbally and then something changes
after the meeting and then we are left in a bit of a quagmire. So I want us to be very cognizant of that that this deadline because these applications started so long ago uh we have been on this process of continually extending that processing deadline um continuously. So let's keep that in mind
pretty please and know all that. Um, and then the original question. So, you know, one thing I want to float by is that there are times where a variance would be approved that says if if there's something like we're processing a variance, we're like, we think it's this distance, but it's snow conditions
and we can't tell down to the foot of how far we are from something. Sometimes the board grants variances that says the structure may be no closer than x feet from the thing. And then we as staff have the discretion to kind of be a little flexible with that person if
there's a small change going down the road to where um it gives us some leverage to work with people. >> And so like maybe there's something here that says you know the tower maybe you know maybe something within that thousand ft but if the board is willing to accept a certain distance that feels
appropriate. We could bring up that uh the PowerPoint that has like the two radiuses. Would that be helpful for the group to look at? Is that a helpful visual for this conversation? >> It's a helpful visual. Yes. >> Yeah, for sure. >> All right, let's figure out where that is. >> Um,
sure. >> Ask the homeowner if there's any distance that they would >> go. There you go. >> Because technically if they >> based on Mr. Chair, if I based on that, it almost seems like we're doing mitigation. We're doing sequencing on
wetlands. Maybe we should also be doing sequencing on impacts to adjoining properties. >> How do we either avoid it or minimize it or mitigate it? >> And asking the applicant to think about it in that procedure. >> I was
>> Well, that was the original location. >> Well, the original location was was 100% now impact, right? >> As far as the the separation. Yes. >> From buildings, right? And and I think that in the interest of the county as
you know citizens representatives here and the things that we're looking at um we're we're trying to say is there a minimize solution in terms of what we're thinking because it's it's um you know accept some
sequencing with regard to the wetlands minimizing that where we can and minimizing impact to you know the the thousand foot. I don't know that it's achievable >> but >> to you know mitigate that to the degree possible in the sense that we often have
to look at at how do we um to achieve some level of compromise is required >> clarification on this diagram both that yellow >> circle and the red circle denote 1,000 ft. >> Yep. And those so that that's Cook
County MIS department. This is not provided by the applicant. So again, I just want to want to keep our wits about us that although we might want to be very helpful, it's again not our jobs to provide the solutions. >> Um >> I would also offer these are conceptual.
>> Yep, these are very conceptual. Um it makes me a little I it would be nice if this could be paused to give the applicant time for them to provide you the technical information for you to review. But again, with that, we are in um you know, I don't know, Mike, if
you're willing to put something in writing tonight to extend that. >> Not tonight. What I would suggest is I bring something back before the the county board because we we're still under the same umbrella by then. >> Right. But the this is the board, county board can't make a decision on a variance. So, it's either decisions made
tonight by this board or you extend the deadline tonight because this board's not meeting again before the deadline. >> I I would like least until tomorrow. so I could talk to Vertical Bridge. I don't want to make it that type of a legal decision on their behalf. >> And that's a tough place for you guys.
>> And and the reason I like this diagram is it is it it gives me some not confidence, but makes me feel like there's maybe a possibility out there somewhere >> because it's not like we're saying we're saying we're asking you to do the
impossible. Mhm. >> Um, and it's conceptual and conceptually there's maybe a solution out there that that makes it work for the land owners, makes it work for the >> I just the reason I bring up conceptual is is that I have been in these
circumstances where the MIS has plotted things >> and I owned land across the road and my lake shore was 75 ft from where it was supposed to be. So, it's sort of like >> I always just so that everybody looks at this with that concept. >> Yes, Mr. Nelson.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to throw out there too, bear in mind that the uh planning commission uh before you made a recommendation to the board to to deny the amendment to the conditional use permit, which puts it at ground zero where it is. And if that would be
changed, that that would have to >> they then come back again. >> Yes. Right. So, we'd have to refile, you're saying, and we would be able to refile. >> Well, that would have to be a discussion. The the the county board in the past has gone in uh a different direction than what a recommendation
from the planning commission has. So, it it can be part of that that discussion. Uh it it's rare that they do. It's it's easier and kind of more legally grounding if they if they don't if they just go with the recommendation. But I just wanted to throw out to the board there that it sends a kind of a confusing message to the board uh of
commissioners that yeah, you want to deny the amendment, but we're going to uh think about the variance for somewhere else when you are recommending. >> I mean, for tonight's decision, we can't think about a variance somewhere else. It's not in front of us, right? >> We don't have a package that says that
>> just not there, >> right? >> But that can be applied for. I mean, another variance can. Yeah. >> Yes. So I don't I don't necessarily see an advantage to tableabling it if there can be another variance application for a specific location >> once it's
>> where we see all the facts before us. Right. >> Let me ask you this. Um is there a statute in your ordinance that says we can't reapply within x number of days? >> I'm double checking the language >> because >> just >> give me a Yeah, that's good to know. But
unless it's substantially different, >> you know, 100 ft this way or that way, is that substantially different? That's the We got to make the call. >> Yeah. >> So, what what's the difference between the purple and the green? Are we talking like ponds
and marsh or like what's the wetlands >> on the wetland? >> It's been a very long time since I looked at the wetlands of the I can try to find it. I mean, are we jumping over beaver ponds here or is this like >> I mean, vegetation is it's >> there's green conifer in the green and
there's there's not in the purple. Just looking at the aerial. >> So, purple is more water. >> This might be cedar. >> Oh, this is >> Yeah, cuz that looks super >> But yeah, see right there it's like super.
>> But then let's get over here. This is like super too. But then what is good director? >> Is that not a road? I I hear cuz I looked through that. So why can't they do something there and go over?
>> I haven't >> because that's a power line. >> I understand. That's my guess. >> I knew this would be >> based on all of it. >> Well, I'm glad that you guys have kind of went down this road before. Like I knew that you guys beat this power thing
to death >> last year. So I know I'm a problem solver. >> I'm like all ready to go run for it. >> Did it make you feel like you're say that would be good cuz that splits the difference between the two. >> Are we looking for something specific
here folks or just waiting? You guys are talking. >> We're waiting. Okay. >> Remember the mics are on. >> Yes. >> Nothing bad. remembering we're not problem solvers as much as we want to be.
>> Mhm. That >> right there. That's what I got off that one number. And I'm assuming that one is this one cuz there's also another one.
There's this one as well. >> So, cuz there's one right there. There's one right there on this one. I'm certain of it. Got the book. Do I still have this one? Admittedly, I'm getting a popup with my
Adobe that says access is denied to a file. I'm not going to say it's the file. >> I might be stuck in my emails. I'm going to dig a little bit more. Sorry for the delay. to discuss in the meantime. I mean the other option
>> that we were talking about is to basically give a distance as a condition, >> right? >> Correct. I mean just to weigh options here, >> right? >> I was just going to ask that. >> Yeah. I couldn't find it >> is approve it saying to work
>> to get into 750 or work with adjacent property owners >> you can you have it open-ended like that >> I don't think so >> I think we need to put a number yeah because otherwise >> condition one right now in accordance with the application materials that's
where they have it cited we change that then we have to give them a minimum >> you give approvals but then you can put conditions on the >> so 750 splitting it. >> No, it's on the solution that he's presented. We can put conditions on that. We can't have him move it and as a
condition. >> Oh, >> okay. Because they've come to us and explain to us and to the neighbors and to their public what they want. >> Okay. >> And that's what they they've asked for specifically what they want, which is what we ask people to do. And so then we have to make a decision specifically on
that and we can put conditions on it >> on what they asked >> on what they asked but we don't move something um or as Miss Maxwell said we can put in a condition that says no more than so
for example when sometimes people will come in and say well the house is going to be 23 feet well the ordinance says 35 why am I putting a restriction on the 23 f feet. So, I'll change it and say move it up to no more than 28 feet because that way if
they make some changes or rock outcropping is there that they're not expecting and they end up pinned up a little higher than they thought they were going to be. The office has the flexibility to go, you got to go ahead within the parameters. >> Miss Max, Miss Maxwell.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're quite certain that the provision that used to say there was no relication within a year has been removed from the ordinance. Neither of us are finding it. Okay. >> Um so this variance, you know, if you have findings that would support a denial, the applicant could come forward
with an updated application, a new variance, uh there would not be an ordinance reason why we couldn't reprocess something different. Well, given that, I would make a motion to deny the variance request then >> and the findings, we need to go through the questions, talk about what exactly
it is we're >> we're talking about before we >> So, >> we need to do that before a second. >> Withdraw the motion there so we can go through this part. >> Uh, I'll withdraw so we can go through findings. >> Yeah. What page are we on for findings? >> What page is that?
>> I got it on 199. >> There we are. >> I know. Just realized that. >> So, review criteria. In evaluating practical difficulties is used in conjunction with the granting of a variance, the board of adjustment must consider the following criteria.
The variance is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use guide plan and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Cook County zoning ordinance and other Cook County official controls. So do we find it to be consistent or not
consistent with that? I would take into consideration the thousand foot guidance and the requ and sub less than a th00and feet requires a variance to get to 500 square f feet.
>> So the the um the variance has been consistent with the goals in the policy the comprehend and in harmony with the general purpose and intent because it is permissible to request a variance for less than 1,000 ft. And I'm being very specific for for a
reason, >> right? >> Okay. Does everybody agree with it that it's it isn't it is consistent with that? The variance is consistent with that. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Moving on then to number two. The proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use district in which the
property is located. >> Yes. >> Yes, that is correct. It's a far zone and this is a permitted use. The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable matter manner not permitted by the Cook County zoning ordinance. >> All right.
>> There I mean I I would question the reasonleness in the tower ordinance that we it's a matter of degree basically that we're we're caught between the wetland and setbacks. >> Mhm. >> Right. Right. And >> so it is it is a matter of reasonleness to me
>> because I would I would argue the reasonable manner is that they meet the thousand foot setback. >> Right. >> Or or potentially >> but but then there would compromise between we're evaluating a variance. >> Correct. >> The variance is by definition not
complying with the ordinance as written. >> Correct. So if we apply the thousand foot standard then we said you have you you can't get a variance unless you you know to the point where you don't need a variance but then the purpose of variance is obiated right so we're here
for approving variances and they're requesting a variance to be within the th00and ft and not exceed the 500t limit that the law stipulates. >> Okay. Okay. I can agree with that. Okay. >> Okay. All right. The property owner has
established that the practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner or in this case the lease applicant. >> True. >> Again, I think we're talking about the wetlands here, >> right? that there there exists the a
practical difficulty of wetlands, but it does not preclude the building of the tower in a way that minimizes the impact on those wetlands to me. But the wetlands are not the wetlands are right. Right. Right. They're not the creation of the property
to be clear. But as we're as we're examining the practical difficulty in question, >> correct. I would agree that >> that has been asserted. >> They're not they're not a practical difficulty. >> Not to the degree that it's been taken in the solution. >> Correct. >> Right. You know, there are there are
ways to mitigate this and be closer to the desired thousand foot separation if not at the thousand foot. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, a no to any of these is a
denial of the the um variance request. >> Correct. Mhm. >> And since um >> um >> is the board >> do we want to at least address the last two? Just >> certainly
>> approving the variance maintain the essential character of the locality. Um yes, as much as a cell tower can. I mean they're just they are what they are. It's um if we denied them because of the way the property looks today, >> we wouldn't be putting them in the
county anywhere. >> Correct. the property owners established the practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone. I think that we have done that as well. >> So items four
practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. Um we think that the the um property the unique property circumstances
are a reality but they've been um overly compensated for in the sense that there are other solutions which minimize the impact and approach the objective to a greater degree. So, is we is anybody disagree that item
four has not been met given the the analysis we've done this evening? >> Okay. So, uh do I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion to deny the variance with those findings >> based on item four.
>> Okay. Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> All in favor? I >> I not not heard. Um the variance is not approved. >> Is that 5 to9? >> Yes.
>> Is it unanimous? Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. You handled this very well. Appreciate it. planning commission. >> Okay, take it easy. >> So, we're not done yet.
>> No, we got one more item D. >> Speaking of handling it very well. >> Seeing up um applicant Dan Anthony Nelson, the Leo stakes late clap. >> Poor guy's been back there for a long
time. Sorry, Mr. Nelson. We'll get you started here. >> All right. >> Oh, that's >> right. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> This is a variance request for relief from the Cook County Bluff Setback
standards to allow primary dwelling, a 28x 36 singlestory cabin to be placed 20 ft from the top of Bluff where a minimum of 30 ft is required on a substandard legal lot of record located at lot 4, block 1 of Leo Lake Estates. The applicant's property includes 1 acre
with approximately 188 ft of Leo Lake shoreline and 145 ft wide at the building setback line. The parcels primarily contained within the Lakeshore residential zone district with a small portion in F3 zone district. Newly created lots must be 1 acre and 150 ft
wide at the structure setback. Leo Lake is classified as a recreational development lake. The applicant, Dan Nelson, is requesting relief from the Bluff Setback requirements to allow a 10-ft encroachment into the top of Bluff Setback on his property on Leo Lake to allow the placement of a 28 by 38 28x 36
singlestory cabin. The parcel is currently undeveloped. However, the parcel shape is irregular and due to narrower width is non-conforming. I included the bluff setback standards in the ordinance. Um, the parcel is identified as lot four within the Leo
Lake estates plat. There we go. uh which was recorded in 1977. Lot 4 is about 145 ft wide at the 100 foot building setback line from the lake. The parcel is currently undeveloped. However, there is a power line that crosses the parcel and the property is
well vegetated with a mature forest that includes impressive cedar trees of a variety of ages. The property owner has taken proactive steps to manage the forest to reduce wildfire risk with balsom removal efforts. Cook County Recorders Office has one variance recorded within this plot. Lot three has granted a shoreline setback of 50 feet
to build a cabin due to topography in 1986. Within this plat, few permits are on record indicating most likely that these cabins are pre-existing legal nonconformities. Here's some aerial photos with site conditions. Uh the grade I don't think shows up very well, but they're shaded
gray and that's supposed to indicate the bluffs. So I apologize that that shows up better on the paper. Um, so this is Leo Lake Estates's plot and his property is lot three, but >> lot four. >> Lot four, sorry. Um, uh, as you look at
the site plan here, um, this is an excerpt from the application. Uh, this is kind of indicating that 20 foot setback from the bluff. Um, this is at a location where the power line is drawn on that site sketch a little bit to the,
uh, I guess southish. Um and then on the right hand side of the screen is where the mound the septic mound is proposed to be between the structure and the property line. So this structure is trying to be located with the lake setback the bluff setback space for the
septic mound also meeting the lake setback and then the power line is how this location was selected. Um for sight considerations as I indicated that septic location is one component driving the need to be within the setback from the bluff. Um I have
some information there from the county environmental health officer Jesse Johnson. Uh the slope the property has a bluff feature on the south and east sides of the parcel. the property um property owner has adjusted site designs and the proposed variance to minimize the amount of variance relief
being requested and is proposing to keep development outside of the bluff impact zone. As a reminder, the bluff impact zone is at first 20 ft from the top of the bluff. So, this is requesting to be placed at that at that 20 foot setback line. Parcels meeting impervious surface
coverage. wetlands are not an issue driving the need for the variance and the shoreline has a a very healthy well-veated tree forest cover. Uh for public noticing, the application was publicly noticed in the Cook County News Herald on January 23rd, 2026. 15 letters
of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as county departments and the DNR hydraologists. Two written comments were received from adjoining property owners during written comment period and an email from the DNR. Alan and Jennifer Lipkkey of lots one and two of Leo Lake Estates plat support the variance request recognize
the lots were created in the 70s and regulation changes since lot creation identify the power line and topography characteristics and site other variances that have been granted in the vicinity. Dave and Barb Tuttle of 15 Crooked Pine Trails support the variance request and the DNR area hydraologist provided the
following comments stating I do not find the request to be controversial or unreasonable. I recommend that if approved, the land owner increase vegetative planning within the bluff impact zone, replace any vegetation that was disturbed or removed during construction, maintain a buffer area in the bluff impact zone, no additional
structures be permitted within the bluff setback area or ordinary high water level setback area, and gutters be placed on structure to redirect precipitation or flow away from the lake. I have provided some draft findings relative to the variance criteria. Um the for the practical
difficulty element, I believe that the lot creation date and configuration relative to being created prior to zoning and state bluff regulations is a component for consideration as well as the narrowing lot width and also the reasonleness element in particular. I
feel this cabin is um quite reasonably situated in size and scope relative to the property um and the amount of variance being requested. Um for staff recommendation for considerations, the applicant did meet with land services staff in the fall of 2025. The re to
review the layout and options of the property. Careful attention was given to the placement of the septic system and cabin in relation to setback requirements for the lake and property lines and existing site features, the parcel shape, power line, and topography. Following the consultation, the applicant revised the plans to
reduce the encroachment into the bluff setback and successfully avoided any intrusion into the bluff impact zone. Consistent with land services staff recommendations, the site layout has been adjusted to minimize the variance requested and the proposed structure location now meets the 20 foot bluff impact zone setback. Considering the lot
shape, topography, and power line placement, the proposed project and variance request appear reasonable with practical difficulties present. And I have provided a few draft conditions to be considered. And that's all I have. >> Um, is Mr. Nelson here?
>> Very patient. >> Please state your name and your address when we get situated. Um Dan Nelson, 3030 Sumpter Avenue North, apartment 209 in Crystal, Minnesota, 55427.
>> Thank you. Um so we see a pretty well thoughtout solution here. Is there anything you'd like to add to what Miss Maxwell had to provide? Um, no. I think that's uh Well, my my mound guy said that's
probably the only place to put a mound to take into consideration for that. You mentioned that. And um otherwise, yeah, it's a lot of back and forth to try to fit it in there. So, I I can't I can't really envision any other way to do it
other than this. Okay. Thank you. >> Um opening to public comment. Any comment from the public? Okay. Not hearing anything. Public comment disclosed. Word. Would you like to discuss from my perspective? I see someone who
sat down with land use offices and figured this out pretty great detail. >> I think the findings are um well explained from the staff in terms of what they went through to to arrive at the the solution. Obviously the bluffs
in this space um are are you know driving this and and complying with the lake setback as well. So um >> any further discussion comments? >> Nope. I would make a motion to approve it. >> Okay. In keeping with
>> with the staff's um considerations. >> Okay. >> The conditions. >> Conditions. Look at the conditions just a second. >> One of these days I'll get those words right. >> I'll second that motion, Mr. Chair.
>> Okay. So, I have a motion on the table for approval accepting of staff's findings and conditions. Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> None opposed. Motion. Variance is
approved. I would mention Neva is great to work with. >> Yes, she is. >> Even know this. We're worried about fleeting. It's getting promoted. >> Well, thanks for waiting, Dan. >> Yep. Thank you. >> I'll send you a letter tomorrow. >> We have a motion to adjurnn. >> I will motion to adjurnn. I will second
that motion. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> That was a tough one. >> Our mics off yet process, >> I guess. So that would happen. >> Yeah, that was really tough.