Go ahead. >> Um, call the board of adjustment meeting to order. Uh, first order of business is to approve the agenda and the meeting minutes from April. I have a motion or any comments on those.
>> No. I'll motion to approve those. >> Okay. >> I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor? I >> All right. >> The agenda and the meeting minutes have been approved. All right. Moving on to new business
staff. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first item is a variance submitted by Darren Amit. This is uh admittedly a little bit of a unique variance request, so bear with me as I um try to unravel this for you.
This is a request for relief from the Cook County zoning ordinance to allow after the fact creation of three sub substandard F1 parcels within 5% of the zone district lot area requirements for parcels 55-208 3300 552084300
and 552084350. The three parcels are all located entirely within the F1 zone district. Newly created lots within the F1 must be 20 acres in size and 300 ft wide. The subdivision ordinance requires a 5% deviation as a practical difficulty for
variances from lot size requirements in the FAR 1, FAR 2, and FAR three zone districts, and the parcels are nonshoreland. The applicants requesting the variance to legitimize three existing parcels located in the far one zone district. The subject parcels contain
approximately 19.59, 19.63, and 19.62 and 62 acres respectively which are slightly below the minimum 20 acre lot size requirement established in the far1 zone district. The purpose of the variance request is to formally recognize the parcels as legal buildable
lots and provide certainty regarding their development status. While staff interprets the parcels as legal substandard lots eligible for conforming development due to their dimensions, the applicants are seeking formal approval through the variance process to establish a durable record and eliminate future uncertainty regarding the
parcel's legal status. For ordinance citation, these lots these parcels do not technically meet the lot of record definition because they were created after the lot of record date. So they were created um after the enactment of
the zoning ordinance in 1984. These parcels do not meet the FAR1 lot size requirements because the minimum lot acreage is 20 acres. If this variance is approved, these parcels will be legal non-conforming lots and subject to the substandard lot provisions in the zoning ordinance. Uh due to their size,
it's highly unlikely that variances will be required for any future development so long as the development is conforming to the county septic and zoning regulations. As I mentioned the 5% uh number earlier, that's in reference to the Cook County subdivision which was adopted in 2006.
The 2000 in that subdivision ordinance, it recognizes a 5% deviation as being a practical difficulty for the creation of new parcels. So it doesn't administratively allow staff to create new parcels that are substandard. rather
new parcels being created that are within that 5% deviation would still need a variance before the board of adjustment. All right. Uh for background, according to records from the Cook County Recorders Office, the subject parcels
were created in 1998. At that time, Cook County did not have a formal review process for certain land divisions that did not require a plat, although zoning regulations were in effect. Based on the available information, staff believes that the parcels were likely created with the intent of meeting the 20 acre
minimum lot size required in the far one zone district. However, each parcel ended up being slightly smaller than 20 acres. Today, Cook County subdivision ordinance recognizes a practical difficulty in the subdivision process for parcels in the far one, two, and three zone districts uh to vary up to 5%
from the minimum lot size requirements. If these parcels were being created today, a survey would be required to verify that they fall within that allowable range and then a variance. However, the county's ordinances do not clearly address how to treat parcels like this that were created in the past
and are slightly unders sized. Staff also reviewed the parcel dimensions to determine whether the lots meet other zoning requirements. Although the parcels do not have direct road frontage or two of the parcels don't have direct road frontage, access is provided from the north. Based on that access
arrangement, staff determined that the parcels meet the minimum lot width requirement for the far1 zone district. The only zoning issue identified is the parcel size. While the lots are somewhat shallow in depth, staff believe that they can still accommodate conforming development provided all required
setbacks are met. The FAR1 district provides a 50-ft setback from all property lines. Staff's current interpretation is that these parcels function as legal substandard lots and are eligible for development. However, because this conclusion relies on administrative interpretation rather
than clear ordinance language, approval of the requested variance would provide long-term certainty for both current and future property owners by formally recognizing the parcels as buildable lots. Cook Countyy's GIS analyst did provide a technical analysis explaining the survey discrepancies that exist
within this area. Staff is aware of numerous similarly sized parcels with comparable circumstances. Based on feedback from the board of adjustment and planning commission, staff may explore a future ordinance amendment to provide a more efficient long-term solution and establish clear authority
for the administrative recognition of similarly situated parcels, thereby reducing the need for individual variance applications. For background site conditions and considerations, these parcels are accessed off of Casper's Hill Road. Two parcels are accessed through an easement
from the properties to the north and do not have an access or fire number assigned for emergency services. Large tracks of wetlands are also present in the area. A memo prepared by GIS analyst Kyle Oberg is included in the packet materials and provides historical and legal context regarding undersized
40acre parcels commonly found in northeastern Minnesota. This memo explains that many quarter quarter sections that are legally described as 40acre traps contain less acreage in reality due to original federal survey methods, geographic conditions,
surveying limitations, and historical surveying practices associated with the public land survey system. This memo further outlines that federal and state legal frameworks governing these parcels, noting that original government survey monuments and boundaries are controlling regardless of acreage
discrepancies. As a result, many properties in the region contain lawful acreage deficiencies that were not created by the current property owner and are characteristic of the region's history rather than the result of modern subdivision activity.
For legal noticing, the application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on May 22nd. 13 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as county departments. One written comment was received from adjoining property owner during the written comment period. Tim White of 881 County Road 14 expressed no
objection to the request, noting that this 5% error range is a common survey error in range three east. I provided some draft facts and findings for you to consider after holding the public hearing. For staff recommendation for consideration, the variance is
required due to historical survey reference data as described in detail in the memo from the GIS analyst. It persists throughout the county and staff would like to proceed with a broader effort to legitimize these parcels through an ordinance amendment based on feedback from the board of adjustment. If approved, the following condition could be attached to the variance
request. Each parcel must get an address or fire number assigned through the Cook County Emergency Services Department prior to issuance of any additional land use permit so that emergencies vehicles can locate the properties. And I have that GIS analyst memo in your pocket. Hope you had time to review it.
I think it provided a lot more >> it does context. all of this. So, thank you. >> And the applicant's representative is here today, too. >> Yes. >> Um, would the applicant like to come forward?
>> I'm hard of hearing. I'm sorry. You don't want to see something I'm not supposed to. >> Okay. Would you, gentlemen, please state your names and your addresses, please? >> What name and address? >> My name is Darren Amit. I'm at 1985 102nd Street East, uh, Ingrove Heights,
Minnesota. >> Okay. Is your purpose to help? >> Yeah, just to help him here. >> Okay. But you're not my son. That's fine. >> No. >> Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Um, I understand
got a hearing issue myself. Um, anything you'd like to add to to what the uh staff has provided. >> Anything you'd like to add? >> Um, I guess not really. The only reason we're the process we're going through
here is cuz I sold that one piece, that 20 acre section. Part of her concern was that if it takes her she 10 years to build that something would would change and that 5% rule would not be effective anymore. So
and I understand why why she wants that. >> Right. >> All right. Thank you. Um anything else to add? >> I don't think so. >> Okay. Thank you. Um open for public comment. Is anybody from the public that would like to comment on this?
Seeing none, thank you. Um, close public comment. Uh, discussion. Any comments or thoughts? So, >> I bet there's lots of properties floating around like this. >> All you got to do is look at the section maps. Yeah. >> Right. Right. And the the memo really
does help because it really clearly explains what they did and how how we got here. So, um, you know, the the documentation in the record, you know, compliments to the folks who pulled that together. >> Yeah. >> Um, okay. Well, let's see. Any questions?
Uh, do I have a motion? Um, I would like to make a motion to approve the variance request with the conditions set forth in the staff memo. Um I was trying to find there were five of
them. >> Just one condition. >> Just a fire number out there. >> Oh, okay. With the one condition set forth by staff. >> Okay, >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I. Motion carried.
>> Approved. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Um maybe a follow-up question because you alluded to that. Then um in our next ordinance revision, we may figure out a way to deal with this
>> on a broad basis so it's not an administrative issue. >> Okay, that would be good. >> Or have an administrative solution. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. That's one word. So it'd be nice to give you the legal authority >> Mhm. to be able to walk into these things and say, "Okay, you know, this is
signed off. Here's a here's a record." And it goes to the recorder and it's it's entered into the record and then subsequent property owners aren't don't have to. I know >> we'll work on that. >> Thank you. >> Put on the list. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Moving on to item B. staff. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Uh, next variance request is submitted by Linda Garity. This is a variance request to allow relief from the Cook
Countyy's zoning ordinance to allow an 8x12 addition to be placed 53 ft from the shoreline of Clara Lake to convert the existing porch into inside living space and increase the size from approximately 7T 11 by 11 to 7 by 18. to
be placed 36 ft from the shoreline within the shore impact zone and no further encroachment towards the road. And a modification to the location of the front entry where a minimum setback of 100 ft is required from the shoreline of Clara Lake which is a recreational development classification and where a minimum setback of 50 ft from the road
center line of two-mile road on a substandard lot of record at 3952 Mile Road. The applicant's property includes 0.76 acres according to the Cook County records with approximately 341 ft of Clare Lake shoreline. The parcel is contained entirely within the Lakeshore
residential zone district. Newly created lots within the zone district must be 1 acre in size and 150 ft wide at the structure setback and water frontage and Clara Lake is classified as a recreational development lake. The applicant is requesting to make two additions and a modification to the
existing cabin within the shore impact zone on Clara Lake. The property is located between Clara Lake and Two-Mile Road. The Cook County Zoning Ordinance recognizes legal non-conforming residential structures in Cook in section 9.02 of the Cook County SE
zoning ordinance. These types of nonconformities are allowed to exist. They're allowed to be continued through the repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion. Expansion of a nonconformity would include any increase
in height of the structure. There's also uh Cook Minnesota State Statute 394.36 subdivision 4, which recognizes residential non-conforming structures, which mirrors closely our Cook County zoning ordinance language that I just read to you. Primarily, it's most
important to recognize that these types of structures do have the right to legally exist and be maintained over time. They just simply don't have an inherent right for expansion. And that's why we go through the variance process. The recreational development lake setback requirements are outlined in se
in the section 7.05 of the zoning ordinance. I've also included the definition of the shore impact zone which is the land located between the ordinary high water level of the public water and the line parallel to it set back 50% of the required structure
setback. For background, this property includes lots 9 and 10 of Lake Clara Plot which was recorded in 1962. Let me see if I got a good picture of the lot. I think yeah, more or less kind of this. The lines are a little bit off
but that gives you a better idea. Um, in 1962 is when this lot, these two lots were created before zoning regulations were enacted. This makes them legal lots of record and are subject to provisions of section 9.03 of the Cook County sub
se zoning ordinance. The property currently has a cabin and a holding tank. Prop County records indicate the cabin was built in 1970. As such, it is a legal non-conforming residential structure and is subject to section 9.02 of the Cook County zoning ordinance.
Sorry for a couple of edits for those of you reading this verbatim with me. Not the zoning or subdivision ordinance. Uh for site conditions and considerations. Uh for septic, the property is served by a permitted holding tanks. Impervious surface coverage. The additional
impervious surface area is within the allowable imperous surface area coverage allowances. Wetlands are not an issue driving the need for the variance. The property is relatively flat, so slopes not an issue driving the need of variance. And for shoreline health, the property does have a mix of shrubs and
trees along the shoreline. In your packets are some images of the current cabin in figure 2. And figure 3 includes an excerpt from the applicant. My slides are a little out of order here, so I'm going to hop back just a little bit. Um, this is an excerpt from the application that shows that 8 by12
addition uh provided by the applicant. And then there's also on the other side of the cabin uh the proposal to to kind of square off that corner closest to the lake in the northwest corner of the cabin where it's currently a porch
for public noticing. The application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on May 22nd. 10 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as this as well as the Cook County Coalition of Lakes Association, county departments, and the DNR hydraologist. No written comments were received from adjoining property
owners during the written comment period. The Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District did provide a memo which is included in your packet materials and they did provide some comments regarding potential water quality impacts associated with increased development within the shore impact zone on Clara Lake. The memo does
note that while available water quality data for Clare Lake is limited and doesn't really support a stat statistically significant trend analysis is important to protect water quality for existing highquality water bodies and um due to the lakes's relatively
small size, shallow depth and susceptibility to nutrient loading and the soil and water conservation district emphasizes the critical role in shore impact zone is filtering runoff, stabilizing soils and reducing erosion and protecting aquat. aquatic habitat. The memo cites research indicating that
natural shoreline vegetation is one of the most effective ways of maintaining water quality and reducing long-term restoration cost. The SWCD expresses concern that expanding a structure within the shore impact zone could incrementally erode the purpose of the shoreline setback standards and recommends that if approved, the project
incorporate measures to manage storm water, maintain and enhance shoreline vegetation, and minimize future impacts to the lake. And obviously, the full memo is included in your packets as well. There's the public notice area along the
road there. And that's the view of the cabin from the road setback. In your packet, I've included some draft findings. Um, as we do with every variance, we review variances by the same standards set out in Minnesota state rule
statutes. Um, and with that, I've provided some draft findings based off of the facts and what we've reviewed as staff already. The first one being that 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
zoning ordinance and other official controls. The Cook County zoning ordinance requires a 100 foot setback from recreational development lakes. So the applicant's proposing additions to the cabin that would be placed approximately 36 feet from shoreline of Clara Lake to the closest point within the shore impact zone. The land use
guide plan includes a general land use goal which includes policy 13 which says redevelopment of already developed lands is generally preferred over the development of undeveloped lands. There's a natural features and environmental concerns goal with policy 16 to evaluate and minimize adverse
impacts on air quality, surface and groundwaters, wildlife habitat, ecological systems, and other natural features through land use decisions. There's also a land use administrative and intergovernmental goal which states land use related decisions shall recognize the need to duly consider the
rights and responsibilities of the general public good with the corresponding rights and responsibilities of the individual. The next variance finding um or question that we're supposed to review is the proposed use of the property allowed in the land use district in which the property is located. Draft finding. The
parcel is zoned lakes shore residential. The applicant's property includes 0.76 acres with approximately 341 ft of Clara Lake shoreline. Residential uses are permitted within the zone district. The next question, the property owner is proposing to use a property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the
Cook County zoning ordinance. The property owner does pro propose to use the property in a reasonable manner given the additional square footage is moderate relative to the size and proportion of the existing cabin. There will be no increase in height in the structure with minimally increased viewing from the lake with the additions within the current sight lines of the
cabin from the lake. The lake setback does not does include a natural vegetation riperian buffer and the road is a dead-end private road where traffic travels at slower speeds making the relaxed road setback reasonable and not likely to generate a safety concern. The next question, 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 parcel includes two existing legal lots of record which were required to be combined in accordance with Minnesota State Statute 394.36. The residential dwelling is also a legal
non-conforming structure and has been maintained. The expansion will address functional improvements within the cabin and utilize the existing infrastructure already established. The next question, approving the variance maintain the essential character of the locality. Number one, the area is zone lakeshore residential consisting of conforming and
non-conforming lots. The parcel is located at the end of a dead-end road and additions will have minimal additional viewshed from the lake and does not increase the height of the structure. And lastly, the property owners established that the practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone. Staff's finding is economic considerations are not the
reason for the variance request. staff's recommendation for consideration. The request appears to seek relief to allow expansion of a non-conforming residential structure in order to provide additional utility and functionality for the property owner. The proposal does not include additional bedrooms and is not expected to
significantly increase the visibility of the structure from the lake. The board may wish to evaluate the two proposed additions separately to determine whether each independently satisfies the practical difficulty criteria. The proposed 8x12 addition avoids further encroachment into the shore impact zone
and meets the required road setback and is expected to have minimal visibility from the lake. The proposed 7- foot porch expansion, which would extend within the shore impact zone, may warrant further discussion. The board may wish to explore with the applicant whether squaring off this portion of the structure is necessary given the aspect
of the request satisfies the practical difficulty standards for granting a variance. If approved, the following conditions may be attached to this variance request. Number one, the property shall remain in compliance with Minnesota rule 7080 and all applicable Cook County septic requirements. Number two, no portion of the approved addition
shall be located closer than fill in the blank feet from the ordinary high water level Clare Lake. Number three, prior to issuance of the land use permit, the applicant shall submit a storm water management plan demonstrating how runoff from the proposed addition and disturbed areas will be directed away from Clara
Lake or infiltrated on site to minimize sediment and nutrient transport to the lake. Number four, a native vegetative shoreline buffer averaging at least 25 ft in width shall be maintained between the ordinary high water level and developed portions of the property. Existing native shoreline vegetation shall be preserved to the greatest
extent practicable while allowing wildfire mitigation activities consistent with fire wise best management practices. Number five, no additional clearing, grading, or removal of live vegetation shall occur within the shore impact zone except as necessary to complete the approved project and maintain existing pathways.
Dead or disease hazardous trees may be removed. Number six is existing access pathways to clear lake shall be maintained and shall not be expanded in width. Number seven, all disturbed soils resulting from the construction shall be stabilized upon project completion through reveation, erosion control measures, or other approved best
management practices. Number eight, gutters, downspouts, and other drainage features associated with the addition shall direct runoff to infiltration areas, rain gardens, vegetated areas, or other storm water management practices designed to prevent direct discharge towards Clare Lake. And number nine, prior to commencements of construction,
the applicant shall consult with the county soil and water conservation district regarding shoreline stewardship, water management, and native vegetation recommendations for the property. And the applicant is here today. >> Thank you. Would the applicant like to come up and make any comments?
one chair. >> When you're ready, please state your name and address. >> Okay. Uh my name is Linda Gerty and I'm at 3952 Mile Road in Lootson. Also, you might see an address of 1082nd
Street in Stillwater where I go back and forth between the two. >> Very common. Thank you. Um any additional comments you'd like to make in addition to what staff has already provided?
>> Uh sure. Thanks for hearing me today. By the way, um the addition, the 8 by 12 edition, and this um relates to runoff from rain, etc. It's going to
have a shed roof that will direct rain away from the lake. I'll have gutters and rain barrels in place too on both sides of the property. And um
neither of the neither of my ideas for the addition and the reconforming of the porch will um be any closer to the lake than the
structure that's already in place. So, I'm trying to be as um intentional with not impacting the lake and the shoreline impact zone, etc. Uh because I absolutely love how it
looks and I want to maintain it to stay that way. So, but I don't have a shower or hot water. That would be nice. and uh my a kitchen that functions too would be those are my
intents for doing this. >> Okay. >> So, >> any additional comments? >> Nope. >> All right. Thank you. Any comments from the public? Seeing none, thank you. We'll close public comment.
Board members, any questions? >> I don't have any questions. It seems pretty conservative as far as additions go. Appreciate that you're trying to minimize the impact. So, the proposed 7 ft porch extension
would extend within the shore impact zone. Correct. >> Entire building is within the shore and pack zone, right? >> Parts of it. Yeah, we um in the pockets
>> 13 ft worth of it or so, >> depending on where you measure it. So we have our best measurements on page 62 of your packets. These were staff collected setbacks. So
the current porch is 41 ft from Clara Lake. And so the porch would extend towards Clara Lake, that additional 7 ft, but it's kind of at an angle. So it's not 7 feet straight towards the lake. >> Yeah. um that would be squaring off the
building going up to the current front lakeside of the >> cabin itself. It wouldn't be go going beyond that. >> Um if that makes sense. >> So it wouldn't it wouldn't go past where the building already is. >> Correct.
>> But it probably would be the closest point, right? The addition would become the closest point. The deck is currently 35 feet from the shoreline. Um, so just for a reference point when you see that on the site plan
that answer your question, >> Jeff, generally yeah. Yeah. >> And it has to do with how the shoreline is curving along >> the property in terms of where the property or where the building is squared too. >> Right. When we talk about uniqueness and
practical difficulties, the lot shape itself and the location of the cabin, you know, is I think it's more so just gauging reasonleness and how much encroachment towards a resource and what size that level of discrepancy or discussion. >> Right.
>> That's what I gathered from it. So in the and when that's squared off that would be you said 35 ft from the lake >> if that were squared off. >> Yes. >> Double check how we have this written in the legal notes because Linda and I
worked pretty hard to try to >> because that deck is 8 ft. I did measure that deck. it is 8 ft >> uh deep and then >> so yeah >> at this point what we've legally noticed what we were able to clarify was that
the addition of the porch would be 36 ft from the shoreline the as we've talked about this in the past when the board of adjustment grants a variance based off of a setback uh it's staff's job in the land services department then to work with the applicant and ensure that the
land use permit is applied for meeting what your approval is for. Essentially, if you say it needs to be 36 ft from shoreline, staff can't issue a land use permit for 34 feet from the shoreline. >> Right? >> So, that's that's our best judgment. Um, but it is based off of the information
the applicant has given us and we talk about that at length in the pre-application part of things. >> So, the 35 ft gives you >> 36. >> 36 is what you've measured. If we said 35, does does that suddenly allow you to
go another foot or does it >> it's best practices for the board of adjustment to not grant more than what we've legally noticed? >> Yeah. >> Um, so >> we have a blank on this slide. >> Yeah. I always advise applicants to ask for the most you need and then if it
feels too much, we can work backwards from there. Um, so already what's been submitted should be the more conservative version. Um, but in my experience, I I have had times sometimes where people have to come back and ask for an amendment to a variance because we find the site conditions don't allow
what we planned on paper, >> right? >> So, Right. >> and they sometimes they tear things apart and find things are >> they're very different. Right. >> Um, >> so when we fill in that blank, it has to be whatever you you
>> I left that as a blank because I wasn't sure how the board was going to want to go with the porch edition. So, um, that's there so that you can have this discussion and see if that additional encroachment into the shore impact zone meets the variance criteria.
>> Yeah, I'm uh I myself inclined to to since the porch is already there, right? >> And they're squaring off the surface of the porch. We already have the encroachment in the >> impact zone to that point >> already. We already at that 35 ft
encroachment. So to me it seems it's like everybody's agreed it's a relatively conservative approach to what what wants to happen with the property and it's a difficult piece of property >> just looking at it in terms of the
difference between the road >> and it's and we have that you know um I think that number should be 35t Yeah. Is that what it shows in the
drawing? 35. >> We've got 36 in the description of the variance. Okay. Request. >> So that's what we should fill in there. >> 36. >> 36 >> based on the math you guys have done. >> Okay. Well, I will make a motion to approve
this variance based on staff recommendations filling in 36 ft from the ordinary high water mark one through nine. It looks like some of this she's already done, but we will keep it there.
>> And with item two being 30 60. Yeah, correct. >> I'll second that motion. Okay. So, uh, we we have staff recommendations for consideration. Did you address the portions? >> Mhm.
>> Okay. Um, >> I added all those. >> Okay. >> But some of them I know she's already working on. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I may. Mr. Chair, is this adopting with the findings as written?
>> Yes. I thought that's correct. >> I couldn't hear. I'm sorry. Okay. Oh, yeah. Is sorry >> I said accepting staff findings and and conditions. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> I thought you did too, >> but happy to make a clarification.
>> All right, that concludes your >> Thank you. Okay, moving on in the agenda to item C. Stapleton. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a variance request submitted by Michael Stapleton to allow relief from the Bluff setback
to place an 8x12 screen porch addition onto the existing principal structure at a reduced top of Bluff setback 20 ft where the minimum of 30 ft is required at 1753 Greenwood Lake Road. The applicant's property includes 1 acre and approximately 200 ft of Greenwood Lake shoreline. The parcel is primarily
within the lakeshore residential zone district. Newly created lots within the zone district must be 1acre and 150 ft wide. And Greenwood Lake is classified as a recreational development lake. The applicant, Michael Stapleton, is requesting relief from the top of Bluff setback requirements of Greenwood Lake to place an 8x12 screen addition onto
the existing 576 foot cabin 20 ft from the top of the bluff. So outside of the bluff impact zone. The Cook County zoning ordinance section 7.1514 outlines the bluff setback standards. For background, the property currently contains 576 square foot cabin that was
approved in 2023 through a variance with a 20ft setback from the top of bluff. Photos of the existing structure are included within your packet as well as on the screen there. In 2007, the previous property owner completed the wetland replacement plan process and
purchased wetland credits to mitigate impacts associated with a fill placed for a driveway and parking area. The driveway provided access to the site crossing wetlands and resulted in approximately 3,000 square feet of wetland impact. The survey submitted as part of the 2007 wetland replacement plan application did not identify the
bluff feature. Instead, it depicted a proposed building site as meeting the 100 foot setback from the lake. Although the building site is located within the block feature on page 69 of 121 of your packets is that wetland delineation uh and mitigation map with that 100 foot
setback for that original building site that was noted within there for site conditions and consideration. The property has a permitted outhouse privy. There's no issue with impervious surface coverage and the wetland avoidance is a factor in selecting the proposed build site. Uh between the bluff feature and
the wetlands uh there was very limited conforming building locations which was a part of that earlier board of adjustment decision in granting the variance for the cabin originally. Uh, and there you can see the black blob there on the screen is the kind of
approximate bluff layer that we use. And you can see the blue line with 100 foot setback from the lake maps the that 100 foot setback right in the middle of the bluff feature. So the structure is much more further back than 100 ft from the
lake. For slope, the survey work done in 2007 did not identify bluff feature. On-site observable exposed bedrock outcroppings are visible indicating the top of bluff area where this cabin is located has shallow soils and not likely susceptible to erosion. For public
noticing, the application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on May 22nd. 12 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as county departments and the DNR hydraologists. No written comments were received from adjoining property owners during the written comment period.
I have provided some draft findings for you in alignment with the variance criteria and um there's a staff recommendation for consideration that states the property has unique limitations due to the triangle-shaped parcel with
wetlands, the large bluff feature which creates con limited conforming buildable space. The applicant has proposed a relatively small addition onto a relatively small cabin with proper water runoff management practices should be able to mitigate impacts of development. If approved, the following conditions
may be attached to this variance request. Drainage shall be managed with gutters to drain toward the wetland away from the lake. The property shall conform to Minnesota rule 7080 in the Cook County septic requirements and no component of the proposed construction may be closer to 20 ft from the top of Bluff as determined by the Cook County
Lies specialist. And the applicant is here today, Mr. Chair. >> Is not is here. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. The applicant like to approach and get your name and address >> when you're ready. >> I'm a little bit hard of hearing, but my
interpreter is out of town here. Um, Michael Stapleton, 5170, West Highway 61. The uh cabin is located at 715 or 7 1753 Greenwood Lake Road. Uh the only thing I have to uh mention is
the reason why I'm back another applying for another variance again uh like the one that was granted in 2023. After the variance was granted, I was diagnosed with a medical issue and I thought I was going to sell the
property. My wife fortunately talked me out of selling it thinking building would be a good distraction for me. Um, I was prepared to sell the cabin after completed if the treatment didn't work. Um, fortunately it did. The prognosis is
good. And now I would like to make an improvement to the uh property by adding a 18 by 12 or 8x 12 uh screen porch onto the the side of the cabin. So that's why I'm that's why I didn't uh include that
in the original plan when I applied for the variance in 2023. Okay. >> So, it's um without, you know, repeating everything that's in the application, uh it's actually further back from the impl impact area because of the um angle of
the impact zone. It's uh going on rebard sauna tubes just like the cabin is. There'll be gutters directing water away. So, it'll be essentially just like the cabin. Um >> and rebard sauna tubes is because you're basically building on bedrock. >> Yeah. It's there's exposed rock just
like where the cabin is. So just be drilling the rebar down, putting a 12-in sonnet tube. I think I only need >> from talking to the builder two sonnet tubes out there and tie it into the cabin. >> So a simple build and um I think there's
a real small little birch >> um or it's all just a small brush to cut out of there. There's not any no big trees or any vegetation really. >> Okay. >> So, >> all right. Thank you. Um, anyone from
the public that would like to offer comment on this application? >> Seeing none close to public comment. Uh, one of the things I'd like to offer uh, with respect to this particular build and the variance request is that prior to the spring of 2021
in the Cook County ordinance was a exception to bluffs and it was that um, if there was less than 24 in of soil on average across, you know, over over rock um, you could build with regard to the
continuation of the bluff. So, um, probably was recognized as a bluff in 2007, but because it was going on to bedrock, they they fell within that legal exception that we used to have.
and the uh I had told the planning and zoning I didn't want to lose that one but and my public comment and uh they changed it anyways simply because we run into this right where it's um you know a
lot of the bluff concern when you go and look at the DNR site and the and the things that they are declaring as bluffs and the concerns that they're stating it is heavily related to erosion and severe erosion and so I'm I'm good with that, but we we're Canadian shield sitting
here, too. So, it's you've got a difference to to look at all the time when you're out there doing your surveys. So, I I understand that as well. Um any uh comments from the board? >> No. >> No. >> No.
>> Okay. Um >> I would um make a mo motion to approve the variance um with the staff recommendations one through three to be included as a
condition >> and in concurrence with their facts and findings. >> Correct. >> In concurrence with their findings. >> Yeah. >> I will second that. >> All right. All in favor? I >> approved.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'll send you a letter tomorrow with a summary. >> Sounds good. >> Thank you. Okay, moving on to item D, the last variance request. Staff,
>> thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a variance request submitted by Northern Lights Retreats LLC. The variance request is for relief from the Cook County Zoning Ordinance section 7.05 and 9.02 102 to allow the replacement of the original guest cabin with an expanded replacement
guest cabin placed no closer than 160 ft from the shoreline of the Flute Reed River where a 200 ft setback is required as a remote river segment at 4766 Chicago Bay Road. The applicant's property includes 2.67 acres with
approximately 262 feet of Lake Superior shoreline and 388 ft of the Flute Reed River shoreline. The parcel is contained entirely within the single family residential R1 zone district. Zoning lot size requirements. Newly created lots within the R1 zone on Lake Superior must
be 1 acre in size and 200 ft wide at the structural setback. This property is within the Northshore management zone and the shoreland area of Lake Superior. For general property description, the applicant is proposing to uh I'm just
going to go back and just correct myself on one real small thing. Um, under zoning lot size requirements, I stand corrected that actually the um, it should also be noted that the flute reed river as a remote river segment would also have distinct subdivision requirements for newly created lots. So,
just want to clarify that a remote river segment requires a 300t lot width requirements um, for that lot size. So, just didn't want to be terribly inaccurate, but good. Anyway, um so general project description, the applicant is proposing to remove the
existing 16 foot x4 foot 224t cabin and attach 244t deck and replace them with an expanded A-frame cabin. The proposed structure would be approximately 28 ft in height at the roof peak and contain approximately 720 ft on the main floor,
275 ft on the second floor. Additional features include a 12 foot x 12 foot screen porch, an 8 foot x4 foot covered platform, and a cantal levered second floor balcony. The proposed replacement structure would increase the cabin footprint from approximately 224 ft to
approximately 720 ft on the main level with an additional 275 ft on the second floor in addition to the screen porch covered platform and cantalver deck representing a substantial increase in the size, height, and intensity of the existing development.
The photo on the right there is the current cabin and the photo on the left, the aerial imagery is showing Chicago Bay Road on the top and then the Flute Reed River is coming down kind of with that bright blue line there and Lake
Superior on the bottom of the screen. There's a yellow circle and that's where staff have kind of pointed out where this current cabin is. And if you're following along, the red lines going away from the Flute Reed River are just a benchmark to show what about 200 feet
would look like as the setback from the river. Just to kind of provide some context, if a structure was placed at the 200T setback, it would be placed much more uh further away from the Foot Reed River and much more closer to the property over to the west of this cabin
right now. So just for some context, the existing capen is located at approximately 160 ft from the flute river. The flute reed river is classified as a remote river and subject to a 200 ft structural setback requirement. The applicant is requesting
variance relief to allow the replacement cabin to be constructed in a substantially uh the same location as the existing cabin with the nearest portion of the proposed structure remaining approximately 160 ft from the river. The view that you see of the red cabin
there is a view of the current cabin uh with Lake Superior in the background. So this is kind of the back side of the cabin. And then that's the front side of the cabin as viewed from Lake Superior with architectural drawings of the proposed variant structure in the bottom right
hand corner. This is also included on page 89 of your packets. For ordinance citation, the Cook County zoning ordinance recognizes legal non-conforming residential structures uh which do have the right to remain be
continued through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvements, but does not include expansion. Expansion of a non-conformity includes any increase in the height of the structure. I've also included the non-conformity section from Minnesota state statute
for and also the Cook County zoning ordinance section 7.05 05 which outlines a certain lake and river classifications of where the lake classifications are outlined. I did confirm with the Minnesota DNR um that this is well I I'll get to that point anyway. The
description of the remote river segment is that primarily located in roadless forested sparsely populated areas of the northeastern part of the state. Common land uses include multiple forestry, some recreation facilities, and occasional seasonal or year-round residential. Low intensity recreational
uses of these river segments and adjacent lands are common. This class has the limited potential for additional development and recreational uses due to land suitability and road access constraints. For background, county records indicate that this property was
historically the site of the original Hogland Hotel where passengers traveling aboard the America stayed. The current property owner purchased the property in 2023. The property has been licensed and operating as a vacation rental since that time. A review of historical permitting records indicates that
previous land services staff applied a 75- ft structural setback to the property. Staff subsequently consulted with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources area hydraologist who confirmed that the applicable classification for this segment of the flute river is the remote river segment.
As a result, the correct structural setback requirement of 200 ft from the river is what applies. On page 92 of the packet again is that kind of staff rendering to try to demonstrate to where the 200 foot would
now require future development to be conforming on this parcel. And kind of in the research of trying to understand the development patterns that have happened on this property. Um on page 93 of your packets is figure five
and six from previous permits. So, in 2002, there was a land use permit that recognized the 75- ft river site setback um by the applicant and most likely addressed and agreed to by staff. And
then in the site sketch from 2002 and 2003, land use permit showing the demolition of the hotel, a new house, and the 75 foot river setback as indicated. And you can see in that um they do recognize new cabin here in that um
location. These are images that are on page 94 of your staff report. So again with that aerial imagery, just a little bit of a different angle there. The current cabin is kind of in a highlighted yellow circle there. And then the image on the right is what the applicant provided in
their application. Uh it's kind of a overlay of the proposed structure relative to the current cabin. And there's another version of that on page 95 of your packet again as well. Um trying to provide a a comparison between the two.
For site conditions and considerations, the environmental health officer provided a memo indicating that additional septic capacity will be required to serve the proposed structure. Impervious surface coverage isn't a factor driving the need for the variance request due to the larger lot
size. Wetlands are not a factor driving the need for the variance request and the slope of the property is relatively flat. Slope is not a factor driving the need for the variance request for shoreline vegetation. The river shoreline currently contains limited native vegetation within portions of the
shore impact area. The picture on the left is a view from the river side of the property with the current house and the cabin in the far distance um on the screen there. And then the picture on the right is again that view from Lake Superior. Just a more current picture
from our staff. For public noticing, the application was lately noticed in the Cook County News Herald on May 22nd. 16 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as county departments and the DNR hydraologist. Uh I did receive for written comments received there was one written comment
that was received and there was also one late comment received after the written comment period was closed. Uh so that comment is not a part of the record but I just wanted to note that for you. Um the written comment that we did receive with during the written comment period was submitted by Shannon Crossair of
4763 Chicago Bay Road expressing opposition to the variance request citing concerns regarding the purpose of the river setback protection of the Flute Reed River and Lake Superior shoreline and the potential for increased occupancy associated with the proposed development. Additional
concerns included potential impacts on neighborhood character, traffic, infrastructure, waste generation, and short-term vacation rental activity. requested that the variance be denied and if development were approved elsewhere on the property suggested that occupancy and vacation rental use be
limited through enforceable conditions. In your packets again are the staff's draft findings or criteria for you to take into consideration um after following the public comment period, public hearing and uh just generally speaking we'll go through these. So the
variance is and again these are the requirements that Minnesota state statute requires us to review variances by the variance is consistent with the goals and policies of comprehensive land use guide plan and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Cook County zoning ordinance and other
official county controls. Draft findings could include the Cook County zoning ordinance section 7.05 requires a setback of 200 feet from the remote river segments. The current cabin is 160 feet from the shoreline of the Flute Reed River. The applicant is proposing to remove the current cabin in replace
of the new larger, taller structure. The Cook County land use guide plan lists a general land use goal which does include a policy that redevelopment of already developed lands is generally preferred over the development of undeveloped lands. There's also a land use guide
plan goal of a natural features and environmental concerns goal to maintain and enhance quality of natural resources and native ecosystems within the county with policy number 16 reading evaluate and minimize adverse impacts on air quality, surface and ground waters, wildlife habitat, ecological systems and
other natural features through land use decisions. The Cook County land use guide plan residential goal to provide a range of residential options with respect to cost, density of development, and locations within the county with policy number 30 stating residential density should be greatest near areas of concentration of commercial and public
services and employment opportunities. In the land use guide plan, administrative and intergovernmental goal to integrate land use concerns into all appropriate ongoing administrative actions. Policy 77 reading land use related decision shall recognize the need to duly consider the rights and responsibilities of the general public
good with the corresponding rights and responsibilities of the individual. The next variance question we're supposed to look at is the proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use district in which the property is located. The applicant's property includes 2.76 acres with approximately 262 feet of Lake Superior shoreline and
388 ft of the flute river shoreline. The parcels contained entirely within the single family residential zone district. Residential uses include vac residential uses including vacation rental activities are permitted in the zone district when meeting performance standards.
The property owners proposing to use a property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Cook County zoning ordinance. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. The subject parcel is a conforming lot that contains alternative building locations capable of accommodating a conforming structure. Expansions of non-conforming structures
are not a right and a proposed replacement does not reflect the size and scope of the original cabin. The proposed variance is sought to expand an existing non-conforming structure. However, practical difficulties cannot rest on design preference alone. The applicant has identified a reasonable objectives including replacing an aging
cabin and converting the structure to year-round use. However, the proposal goes beyond replacement of the existing cabin and instead represents a substantial expansion of illegal nonconformity. The proposed structure would significantly increase the size, height, occupancy potential, and overall intensity of development within the
setback area. While utilizing the existing building site may reduce disturbance elsewhere on the property, staff does not find that the scale of the proposed expansion is reasonably necessary to allow continued use of the legal non-conforming structure. The next question is, 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. Staff finds that this criterion has not been met. The applicant identifies the 200 foot river setback requirement as a practical difficulty. However, setback requirements alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. The subject parcel
is a conforming lot and contains alternative locations where a dwelling could be constructed in compliance with current setback standards. While historical peritting records indicate that the 75 ft setback was previously applied to development on the property, the applicant has not demonstrated how a unique physical characteristic of the
property prevents reasonable uni reasonable use of the property under current regulations. The next question, approving the variance maintain the essential character of the locality. Staff encourages the board to carefully consider whether this criterion has been met. The property has is located at the
confluence of the Flute Reed River and Lake Superior, an area characterized by significant shoreline resources and environmental sensitivity. Approval of the variance would authorize replacement of a small seasonal cabin with a substantially larger structure within the required shoreline setback. While concentrating development within an
existing disturbed area may reduce impacts elsewhere on the property, the proposal would also increase the scale and intensity of development within the setback area given the unique environmental setting and availability of alternative conforming building location. Staff believes this criterion
warrants careful consideration and economic considerations alone do not seem to be the reason for the variance request. Staff recommendation for consideration is as follows. The historical application of the 75 ft river setback creates a unique circumstance that contributes to the
applicant's request. Staff acknowledged that correcting the setback classification to a 200t remote river setback significantly limits the area available for conforming development and shifts future development closer to neighboring properties. However, the existing of a historical permitting
error does not automatically justify unrestricted expansion of an existing legal nonconformity. The request appears primarily driven by design preference rather than circumstances unique to the property. Staff believe that replacement, repair, or modest expansion of the existing cabin could potentially
be supported if designed to remain generally consistent with the character and scale of the existing structure. The current proposal, however, represents a substantial increase in size, height, and intensity of use compared to the existing cabin. While existing non-conforming structures may be maintained, improved, expansion beyond
their current footprint is not a right. The proposed increase in building size, height, and pvious surface would increase visibility from the river with potential storm water impacts in the absence of a functional shoreline buffer. These impacts are contrary to the goals and policies of the Cook County Land use guide plan intent of the Cook County zoning ordinance. The board
must determine whether the applicant has demonstrated practical difficulties sufficient to satisfy all variance criteria under section 1402D1F of the Cook County Zoning Ordinance. The burden rests with the applicant to establish practical difficulties. Absence such a showing, the board must
deny the variance request. If approved, staff have provided some draft conditions for the board's consideration, and staff would recommend that the board revisit some of those findings to make it more clear that they would support a variance approval. That's all I have for you, Mr. Chair.
>> Thank you. I'm just reading the conditions. All right. Do we have the applicant present? >> Sorry. >> Is is the applicant present? >> I don't believe. >> No.
>> All right. Okay. Never met them. >> You haven't? >> I haven't. >> All been by phone and email correspondents and so forth. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Um All right. Without the applicant to offer additional comment, uh open to public comment. Would the
public like to state u any comments with respect to this project? >> Yes. I guess I will first. Um, so when you're ready, please state your name and address. And then, um, for
the rest of the public, since I see we have a number of people here, um, you know, uh, if you just want to state that you've agreed with what your other public uh, comments have been made, that's that's sufficient, right? Um, if
you have something other unique to add to it, we're we're certainly welcome to that. We want to hear your comments, but uh these can become very repetitious and go on for a long period of time and we want to keep the meeting reasonable for everybody. >> All right, please. >> Hi, my name is Dave Overby. I live I own
the property next door, 4758 Chicago Bay Road. We've uh we're second generation owner passed down from my father and uh it's a nice area and I guess thank you
Nivea for Niva is it na >> uh thank you for the response for my email. Uh I just wish we could have got more information. We just had the one blank paper, one page paper and there was a lot of information that you gave
that we weren't aware of. And I just want to clarify now if if that uh new structure is denied, they can still put it on the lot closer to our property is
what I'm assuming. >> Do you have some comments? So yes, I mean there's legal, you know, it's stated by staff comment here there are legal conforming locations on the property >> that it could >> they could where they could put that structure,
>> but it would be probably you can build >> you've got to respect the 200 foot line from the stream, >> right? But to to the east property line, you could build five is it five or 10 foot offset from the property line.
>> Lakeshore residential is 10 ft. 10 foot and then 50 foot from the county road. >> Okay. So with all that information that we received now, I guess I would be
more apt to say I agree with it and I would rather have it where it's at than have the C have them build another structure that would be, you know, 10 ft off of the property line because that sounds like the option if they don't get
their variance. Well, we would have to, you know, staff would have to evaluate what it is that they came back with. >> Okay. >> So, there's without the applicant here, we don't know where they would look to do that. You know, they could they move it further towards your property line.
It's an option, right? >> Okay. >> Because they they by law are entitled to, you know, put the edge of their, >> you know, the drip line on that side of the building at 10 ft from Yes. your property line. Yes. So, you know, I mean, I guess where are we at in the
planning then? Because I I mean, if this gets rejected, are they going to have to submit another plan for something in another spot? >> Yeah, I don't think we can ask to speculate on that at this point. We don't have that in front of us. >> Okay. Well, you know, I guess I would
have to say if if we could just downsize the cabin a little bit. I mean, you already have one. >> Again, we don't have the applicant. Okay. Okay. Sorry. >> So, I I understand you're supporting for the variance at the location it is. Yes. Cuz this is what we have in front of us. >> Yes.
>> So, we can't um start having other things going on. >> Yes. Yes. I understand. Okay. So, I guess I would have to say if the structure is going to be right where it is, I would support it just because obviously if it doesn't go there,
they're going to look at putting it somewhere else. >> Okay. Thank you. any other public comment that we would have. >> No, go ahead. Okay, I'm going to agree with what you say and you're probably going to eloquent.
>> Please, please state your name and address. >> I'm Rick Schubert and our address is 4754 Chicago Bay Road. So, we're two places west of the property in question. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Um, I guess I have a couple concerns. Uh, one is the septic system that's currently on the property. When Marcia and Ken Lacy built their house almost 20 years ago, they were at a at a very
limited budget. They built the house themselves, and it shows um that they built it themselves. Uh the current owners who bought it 2 or 3 years ago had to finish it up. Um and the septic
was designed, I'm I'm assuming, for a single family home. Um and then Marsha put in the cabin that she rents and now they're proposing to upgrade it and rent it out. So you're going to have two
structures on the property being rented. Um, and I'm just guessing the septic system currently cannot handle that. It's not even a mound. It's built in to the ground. It's a level uh septic
field. Um, and technically there's also an apartment above the garage that Marshia and Ken lived in for a while as they constructed the house. So, there's actually three places that could be rented and occupied. And so the septic
concerns me. >> Yes sir. Just in discussion um if you the conditions that staff offered us to if it were to be approved that they have to comply with the septic requirements. So if the septic is inadequate that would be one of the conditions in order
to get a variance that they would have to comply with. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Are there other concerns? >> Yeah. The the other concern of mine is the water quality on the river and the lake. Uh I was involved in starting the
flute reed partnership which was a citizens grassroots uh watershed project to try and help the river the flute reed river. Um, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency gave us incredible amounts of help in trying
to accomplish that over an 8-year period because they had done a three-year study and come up came up with the five worst rivers on the Northshore contributing settlement into Lake Superior and the Flute Raid River was one of those five.
Um, I talked to Elena Hansel just yesterday who's the head of the Cook County Soil and Water Commission. >> Mhm. >> And she said the Flute Reed River is now the only impaired river in Cook County. The Popular River has not has been
unclassified as impaired. So, I um I'm concerned about the water quality. um what Elena suggested and I noticed that in the all this that we've been reading
that the um board of adjustment can impose conditions on a variance that's approved and Elena suggested that one of those conditions would be that the
property owners put in a buffer zone between the lake and the river on their property. And that one picture that showed the yard stick, >> that would be number two recommendation from >> Yeah, the yard stick that that is right
at the Flute Reed River. And so you can see that they mow right up to the river >> to the edge to the bank of the river. And on the other picture of the taken from the lake looking at the >> I'm interested in hearing your comments, but in writing here number two staff
said put in a buffer. Oh, it says that. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I didn't read I didn't see that. >> Okay. Are there other questions? >> Yeah. So, she suggested a 15 ft buffer of natural vegetation, native plants.
>> We're looking at 50 ft. >> Oh, really? >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. Okay. Um, >> any other concerns? Yeah, I guess I guess just the a question that I've come up with in
talking to some of my neighbors is the concern of these Airbnbs going into Chicago Bay Road and how it could change the character of the whole community. >> Yeah, that's not within our jurisdiction. I've I've I I hear a lot about it in planning and zoning the
previous meeting and we do have discussions with with the u uh county commissioners. Um it is to be revisited at 400 units.
We're currently varying between 380 and 360. So it is actively being discussed and I would recommend you take it up with your county commissioner. with the county commissioner. Right. >> Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Because it's it's a concern of a lot of
residents of Chicago Bay Road. >> I do hear a lot about it. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Well, I would also like to thank you three for doing this work. This is pretty dry stuff that you have to sit through and and it's it's nice
that you are doing this work. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other public comment? Seeing none, we'll close public comment for discussion amongst the board. >> Um for for everyone here, I think one of
the things I'd like to to refer back to um going back a couple pages here observations on on my comment going to page 96. So I look up along the river as it goes back up towards the highway. can you see
a lot of buildings that are already right next to the water um have been built in. I also looked at it um on uh Google Maps, you know, zoomed in and took a look at it and saw the parking lots and so forth that are associated
with some of these other properties >> that are right next to the river. Mhm. >> And so, um, they're not under consideration for us at this time, but you know, this classification of the river and of course the public comment about the river being impaired, all very important things to consider as
we as we look at this one. The other concern I have um with the application, of course, is I did the square footage and it's it's not even close. >> Right. Right. >> You know, it's it's not conservative by
any means. It's it's over double of what the current square footage is. And so, um, and then the other component is is as I look at the contour lines, I can see it gets kind of hilly back there right behind there in terms of runoff and so
forth with the way the water's just going to flow down through the existing structures and buildings into the river drainage both east and west of the river. As we look at those those contour intervals, this lot's pretty level. Um
and then lastly the the uh I think the first question on you know u does the lot drive them to this location because the the parallel between it and
the existing structure um there's just there is no parallel >> right >> and so the um and then the you know as a physical features of the property driving them to this, right? Is it the only place they
can put looked at wetland and rock out properties and all, you know, >> right? But without the applicant here, we it's hard to >> I can, you know, look at the map and I've looked at the pictures. I guess >> sorry to interrupt your discussion, Mr. Chair. I just I I want
to before we get too far in this discussion, I want to double check a couple of things. Okay. Um, we typically send out an email to the applicants the Friday before the hearing and I looked at the email that we sent the notification to and it I realized that
in their application they actually provided two emails and I think one of them might be a misspelling. One has two letters and one >> so they maybe didn't know about it. >> I am wondering if they did not get the packets for today's meeting. Um the second part of what I'm trying to look
up is whether you know just a double triple check that they received the the notice of application that we typically will send people. Um so that's the second part of what I'm trying to look into. But I'm pretty sure that we our office sent the meeting packet to the
wrong email for them. Um so they wouldn't have gotten that message last Friday. So, just procedurally, um, you know, I want you to know that that they might not have gotten that notification. They really should have gotten a memo from us saying that tonight was the hearing way at the beginning when we
first accepted the application. Additionally, they would have gotten an adjacent owner's notice that was sent out to the neighbors who clearly did get the notice also. So, we got that right. Um, this is unusual for us. We typically don't make these types of missteps, but I also want to do our due diligence that
we're not holding a public hearing that someone might be unaware of. >> Right. >> Um so I'm going to be just double checking here. I do want to confirm that we did send them the public hearing um meeting notice, but I want it seems certain that we did not send them the
packet to the correct email um for today's meeting last week. So, um, they provided two emails and I think we sent it to the not the email that I have confirmed that they do respond to. So, I apologize for the competition.
>> It's quite all right. I'm happy we found out about. I'd rather >> deal with it now than than us to make a decision that becomes legally binding on somebody that >> you know >> is is the question whether >> the owners got the information regarding
the date and time of this meeting. Is that the question whether they were notified? >> This this this whole packet. >> I have an answer. >> This whole packet. >> Oh, the whole packet. >> Okay, >> Mr. Char, I mean they did receive the notice that the there was a public
comment and there would be a public meeting on this date. >> The adjacent owners notice goes out to everybody as well as the property owner. >> Correct. >> So, you know, obviously we can confirm that the neighbors got it and we can anticipate that they probably would have received that to their email as well. Um the standard email the county sends it
per tax records. Um, it's just that they did not get the email that notifies them about today's meeting and that the packets have been published which was sent out last Friday. >> And so, Mr. Chair, this might be a question for our county attorney. I mean, they >> they did know the meeting was today at
4:00. >> Right. That's the question I would have for the our attorney is that they were noticed of the public hearing. Theformational packet is not a legal document notifying that they have a public hearing. So in that essence I
would assume and that's where I'm looking for some guidance >> proper to proceed. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So to Mr. Chair to me it seems like do we want to are we going to defer and let
give the opportunity for the applicant to make a presentation or are we going to just continue forward with our discussion about you know it was publicly noticed. we've had our public hearing. We either have to take
an action or table it, either deny it or approve it or table it to give the applicant an opportunity. I I would like to make a couple comments though is that um we have an application for variance in
front of us for what I think is a pretty important setback. Flute Reed River and Lake of Superior. I see a property that has alternative locations on it. Um, granted it may not be the best locations
for the the neighbors if it moves closer to Chicago Bay Road or closer to property lines, but I think we have to act on that, not on what the adjoining neighbors may have done under grandfather conditions.
what um adjoining property owners may have done. So I guess the question for us is do we want to let the applicant have the opportunity to come come back at a
future meeting which actually wouldn't be till the end of July at this point. July 29th I believe is our next meeting. >> Yeah. or do we act on approval or denial of variance?
>> The um it's proper to proceed. So um that that was my first question is is that component um this is available on the website notifi notification of the date that's where I read it right
off the you know when I prepare for these meetings. So, um the other thing that that I'm not certain, you know, we haven't voted on it yet, but um the um
the criteria for approval is, you know, very first comment Number four, the property owner has established that the practical practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created
by the property owner. This is not going to pass that one. >> Correct. That's where I'm at. It it doesn't pass. >> No. >> Press have a doesn't pass. It fails. So, I don't know that there's a reason to
defer on the application that we have in front of us and present it as is. >> I I did confirm while you guys were chatting that I did send them the application notice when we first accept the application that today was the hearing date and that is correct and
they did receive that. It was through the electronic permitting portal. So, I just wanted to double close the loop on that that we did that part right. It was just the email last week that they missed this packet. The packet. Y sorry to interrupt. >> I appreciate the additional facts being entered. Yes.
>> So when and when you've kind of started that process as we go through the evaluation criteria and we get to number four and the answer is no. >> Right. >> So >> and if it's no to any of them, it's >> right. So based on that discussion, I
would make a motion that we deny this variance request based upon their inability to meet the criteria for approval of a variance. >> Yes. >> Number four. >> I'll second.
>> All in favor of the >> motion and a second. Could we go through the findings and be really clear about the findings for denial of a variance and see? >> Okay. I thought we can >> further discussion. Yep. >> Further discussion. Okay. >> In evaluating the practical difficulties is used in conjunction with the grinding
of a variance, the board of adjustment must consider the following. 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 ordinance and other Cook County official controls.
I would say yes, it does that. It's Lakeshore residential. The intent of the land is to >> single family res >> single this is our one correct >> um that um accept correction yes single family residential but it's in keeping
with that from my perspective any any other comment on that >> um do we think this structure meets the um accessory structure limit of 1,000 square ft? Is that a th00and square footprint or thousand square foot >> footprint for now?
>> Okay. Okay. So, it does then >> allowed in the sense um this lot is allowed one primary dwelling, one guest cabin, and one bunk house. And so, this would be qualifying as that guest cabin. So, it's allowed in in that use um allowance. The accessory structure we've
typically applied to like garages, not the a dwelling unit. Okay. >> Okay. Go ahead. Sorry. >> Quite that was a question that jumped into my head. So, >> but it's it's important that we discuss and make all these things part of the
record. Right. >> The proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use district in which the property is located. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the Cook County zoning ordinance. property not proposing use of property in reasonable manner not permitted. So that would be the purpose of the variance. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> And so um >> yes it is a reasonable use of the
property but not permitted at this point. >> And then >> yes >> it's not about the residential use being in a residential zone district. The reasonleness is the amount of encroachment or the amount of expansion. So, how much request is being proposed?
So, just to note that there's just a little bit of a difference between staff's findings and the boards, and that's totally okay. I just wanted to note that it's not just about the use, it's like the type of variance that's being requested, like how much and how close. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> Um, so I might revise myself on that one. It's um it's not reasonable given the uh the size of the structure it's replacing >> and it's u it's over double in size and
then it's within the uh within >> the setback. >> Correct. >> That's been identified. >> Number four, the property owner has established that the practical difficulty involved is due to circumstances unique to the property is not created by the property owner. >> No.
>> And no, that one does not pass. again double in size encroachment on the setback um and the the uh it's not even close to what the original structure is that's being removed proving the variance maintains the
essential character of the locality I'd say yes it does it's single family residential other comments all right and uh the property owner has established that the practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone I think I don't think economic considerations
alone are the purpose of the variance. Um so in light of item three and item four uh not being met the criteria is not met
um that uh would support >> that would eliminate technical difficulty. >> I would agree with that. >> Yep. >> Mr. Sure. With with those motions, uh, would the board accept the findings as drafted by staff for those criteria? I
believe those are in agreement with what you stated as well. >> I agree. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Most definitely. Thank you for bringing that about. Any other discussion? >> Okay. No.
>> All in favor of the um Motion >> deny >> to deny >> this variance request. >> I >> I >> the uh the variance request is denied. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second.
>> All in favor. >> I That's better than I thought. Well, it's, you know, some of them to me are, you know, when they bring you one like this where it's like >> I know >> you can build it