All right. Okay. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Uh start with the uh planning agenda. And uh first order is to look at the uh to approve the the agenda and the
meeting minutes. Do I have a move motion for that? >> I would make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Chair, quick discussion on that. Yeah. uh for the agenda organ organization today. I was wondering if you wanted to move item 2 C, the
vertical bridge uh public hearing for the conditional use permit amendment behind items D and E. Um so that way we'll have that item for the planning commission and then it will open into the board of adjustment following that for the CUP amendment and the variance.
>> I didn't follow that. I uh could do D and E instead. >> First moving the vertical. >> We're going to move the vertical >> vertical bridge to E. >> We're going to do >> so vertical at the end because that'll be the first one on. Okay. >> Correct. >> Yep.
>> And one other adjustment too if I may. I would like to just say something right before the election of the vice chair and chair in recognition of our new members and to express gratitude for our former member who just turned up. Just a just a quick something right before election of vice chair.
>> Okay. >> Be so >> make a motion to agend the >> amend the agenda as per this discussion. >> We have a second for that. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Carries.
>> An approval for the meeting minutes. >> Do we have to have been there to make that motion? I'll make them I'll approve them even though I wasn't at that meeting. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. I >> wasn't there either. So, second. >> All in favor?
>> I. >> All right. Thank you. All right. We'll move to election of the vice chair. >> Right. Before that, I just wanted to express uh we have a new configuration of the board here. So, our new members on the planning commission are David
Seaton and Patrick Knight. Uh, Charlie Labota ended his last term in 2025 after serving for nine full years on the boards. And so, we're really gracious and and grateful that he was able to fulfill that term. So, um, I'm sorry we didn't have more preparation and
acknowledging his last meeting, but we didn't have one in December and January. and then also to fill Charlie's board of adjustment seat. Sheila Weebin is fulfilling his role on the board of adjustments. So, she'll be helping us out with variances and appeals in that role. So, wanted to thank you all and uh this be an exciting year with our new
board configuration. Thank you. >> Thank you. Appreciate that. >> Okay. Um election of the vice chair. We have a nominee. >> I would nominate Paul. Okay.
>> I'll second. You good with that, Paul? >> I'm good with that. >> All right. All in favor? >> I I >> I welcome to the board. And then we move or welcome to the vice chair drop. >> Election of chair.
>> I would like to make a motion for Brad for chair for this calendar year. >> Thank you. >> And I would second that. >> Thank you. >> All in favor? I >> I >> I >> abstaining so
all right. Um with that we'll move to item D. The headstrong. >> Jana, can you get the PowerPoint presentation up? >> That's just me. have button roll.
>> Just trying to keep youall on your toes. See, see if anyone's paying attention to me. >> The clicker works. All right. Uh Mr. Chair, the first uh public hearing here is for Howard Hudstrom. This is a request to reszone 39.83 83 acres from
light industrial district to F3, the forest agriculture residential district on parcel 53-234-4100. The parcel is 39.83 acres and is currently zoned light industrial. The light industrial zone district has a 2acre minimum lot size requirement and
the F3 district that's proposed has a 5acre minimum lot size requirement. The applicant requests to reszone this parcel that's on the Gunflint Trail. Uh the proposed use of the F3 zone district uh change would be to eventually subdivide the parcel for residential lot
development uh which is allowable in the F3 zone district. The F3 district is generally considered less intensive of a use than the current uh light industrial zone district. For site background and characteristics, the parcel is currently undeveloped
located between federal land and Headstrom's Lumber. The original part of originally this was part of HR's lumber and was sold into private ownership in 2012 and has not been utilized for industrial purposes. The property offers direct access to the Gunfl Trail and shares boundaries with privatelyowned
light industrial land to the south and east. Public land zoned F3 borders the parcel to the west and north. Additionally, the 21 acre light industrial zone parcel to the east is under common ownership with the subject property. A public river runs through
the parcel and land within 300 ft of the river is classified as shorland under article 7 of the Cook County zoning ordinance. The Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District noted historical changes to the river where it flows under Hstrom's lumber which may have caused water quality issues downstream. This is still under review.
The river was placed in a culvert going through underneath the lumber mill decades ago and recent data suggests that this has impacted aquatic life. Since this parcel is upstream of that location, changing its zoning to from light industrial to F3 would likely reduce future land use impacts and
provide better protection for the river. The Cook County land use guide plan has several guiding principles relative to reszone. I've included some of those on page uh 185 of 211 of your pockets. um part of those in reszoning of land. It
should consider the existing quantity of land available at the appropriate locations and at the time for a given purpose. And the review of reszones must evaluate impacts on but not limited to the relationship to the land use plan benefit of the overall community adjacent use air and water quality, traffic generation, public safety and
health area aesthetics and economic impact on the area. There are some residential goals to provide a range of residential options with respect to cost, density of development, and locations within the county. And then there's several identified policies about residential density and uses
within the county identified in the Cook County land use guide plan uh within your packets. In your packets, there is a table that compares the current light industrial district to the F3. Uh with this table, it shows different uses and lot size requirements between
the existing light industrial and proposed F3 zone districts. Generally speaking, a zone change from LI or light industrial to F3 will result in zone changes that require larger minimum lot sizes. Instead of a 2acre minimum light industrial district, this would allow or
require a 5acre minimum F3 district uh lot size and an increased number of listed permitted and conditional uses. So, generally speaking, when you look at that list, uh you'll see that there's more allowable permitted uses with the F3, but the generally less intense quote
unquote types of uses. Um, and then also with the conditional uses, you'll see that there's a wider range of conditional use activity allowed in F3 relative to the light industrial district. uh for public noticing. This application was legally noticed in the Cook County
News Herald on January 23rd, 2026. 31 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners within a half mile radius as well as county departments. No written comments were submitted by the adjacent property owners during the written comment period. One technical memo was received from Cook County Soil and Water
Conservation District technician Max Tosinson. uh he provided the details regarding the river and water quality concerns with historic land use practices and uh explains more about the water quality monitoring that's going to be ongoing in the future. Um one excerpt
from that report says as this resoning request moves forward it's important to note that the findings from monitoring in 2026 will not be finalized until fall of 2026. A full summary will be available from the MPCA in late 2026 for review by the planning commission. If further applications are submitted to
Cook County regarding this parcel, additional letters will be written regarding monitoring updates. Essentially, this was just um an early part of our conversation knowing that there's going to be future development potentially on this parcel and so that can just be a part of the conversation
um and not come up as a surprise later on since they already had some of this information. There was also uh just an email provided by the US Forest Service noting to remind the property owner to stay within the private property boundaries and not encroach or trespass on the federal lands. For staff recommendation for
consideration, the Cook County zoning map reflects the county's development patterns aligned with the goals and policies outlined in the Cook County land use guide plan. The proposed zoning map adjustment represents a modification to the boundaries of existing light industrial and F3 zone districts in the
area. This is a preferable reszone action when compared to the reszoning into a new zone district not currently present in the area. This parcel has direct access to the Gunland Trail. However, access will need to coordinate with the DNR to cross the public water course present on the property to access the majority of the parcel. Light
industrial is a more intensive zone district which allows smaller lot sizes and permitted uses which generate more potential impacts to neighboring property owners. Existing Headstrms lumber has situated among many residential uses in this immediate area reflective of the unique history of the
locality. These two zone districts next to each other have not generated complaints over the years in the land services department. Presumably the development of F 5acre F3 lots shall also be compatible with this location with consideration to layout and recognition to existing adjacent land
uses. Um I did provide some draft findings for our new planning commission members. Typically what our staff narratives include is um some effort by staff to align facts present with the application uh within the findings that we need to review each of these cases
and then uh recognize that there's still a public hearing and more discussion to have that may be amended through this process tonight. Um so in some of those draft findings there's the criteria that we use to review uh the zone district map amendments as outlined in the Cook
County zoning ordinance. So the first question uh is the proposed zoning consistent with the comprehensive plan or land use plan adopted by the county of existing potential finding the change from light industrial to F3 is consistent with existing zoning districts in the area and is changing the existing boundary between light
industrial and F3. The next question, has a mistake been made to the original zoning which was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or land use plan which should now be corrected along with the zoning or have substantial changes occurred in the community since adoption of the comprehensive or land use plan which should result in the plan and the
zoning being amended? Potential finding there was not a mistake to the original zoning. Since the original zoning occurred, the county has experienced a significant shift in the increased pressure for residential development. Next question. Does there exist a clear public need for the benefit from additional zoning of the type proposed
which shall be above and beyond any benefit or convenience of the land owner? Potential finding, there is a community need for residential development and the zone change will allow for that use. Next question. Beyond a public need being evidence, is there showing that the public interest would be best served by reszoning the property in question rather than other
property in the community? Potential finding the change from light industrial to F3 will permit residential use of this parcel which is an identified need in the county. And then lastly, in the case of down zoning, which is the changing of a zone district from a higher or more intensive use to a lower or less intensive use, does the proposed
zoning allow for the property owner a reasonable use of their property under the terms of the ordinance as well as serve the public interest and potential finding. The reszone will create greater potential to subdivide this parcel into larger parcels, which will permit residential uses in accordance with the Cook County subdivision and zoning
ordinances. This use will provide for reasonable use of the property and is aligned with the community's need for more residential development. And that's all I have. I've never lost Oh, the chair moved. There we go. I thought I lost the chair. >> All right, we can turn off the
PowerPoint. Thanks, Jenna. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for that. >> Um, good coverage of the I'm still getting used to not having to wear glasses, >> so if I'm fumbling with them, I am.
Um therefore we'll open the uh open the meeting to public comment. Uh would the public like to address this? Uh I presume Mr. Hedstrom first. >> Uh good afternoon commission members. Uh Mr. Chair. Um I'm Howard Hedstrom. Uh
one making the request here. Uh here to answer any questions. Uh looks like uh it fits the FAR three. uh uh um zoning requirement. It it I think
matches very nicely uh the need for housing. It It's uh desirable and it's, you know, less than 6 milesi from town. Uh it'll be pretty easy access once we get a road in. It'll take significant investment, but uh it'll open up some
very nice lots uh pretty close to town. Uh, and it it won't be I mean there'll be a road that travels through the 40, but that's not too long a road for a residential area. Uh, the site is high ground, gently sloping to the
south. Uh, I think if you had a two-story house, you'd probably have lake views. Uh, so it's pretty nice piece nice uh property. Um, I've retained uh uh Charlie Troval. uh he's
doing the survey work on the site uh retained uh MSA John Ly engineer out of Duth um to do wetlands delineation and also help with the the stream crossing u he's done that sort of thing um buyers
heron is uh doing some legal work and and helping me give advice and and doing things uh to help me through the process. So, um I'm kind of excited about the project. It gives me something to do in my retired years and um it
should should be a benefit to the community overall. But happy to answer any questions. >> I appreciate that and thanks for all your prep work and things you've done already. It shows. >> Uh does the board have any questions for Mr. Hedstrom? >> All right. Thank you, sir. Um any public
comments that we have? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment and we'll move to board discussion. Does anybody um have any leading comments they'd like to make? >> I think it's a great use of the land.
Honestly, I think it's a a a great spot on the trail. Um access to services. It's not being used for the light industrial purpose right now. So, I think bringing it into accord with the surrounding properties makes a lot of sense. Um, yeah, I'm I'm totally in
favor. >> I have a question maybe Neva can answer. Is this property would this be a good example of what Roso could be overlaid on >> even though >> and I could answer that too. Ne and I
have had, you know, lengthy discussions on that. I did uh um look at it really hard uh cuz you could actually do probably 16 lots uh >> instead of the six or or seven or eight lots that will probably be configured
there. the and you know sorry to say from a development standpoint uh there's not much upside it's a lot more development cost lots would be smaller >> um so presumably they'd sell for
half as much even though you get twice many and you got a lot more infrastructure to put in to make it work and you know just from from my financial standpoint it just didn't make any sense and you know trying to think of of future buyers um uh the kind of buyer
that we'll have there will appreciate five acres more than two acres for instance. So it's yeah I did give a lot of thought to that. So yeah >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> Very good feedback. Thank you. >> And and back to the utilities I forgot to mention that uh REA's got a power
line that runs right on the south side of the property. We have talked to them and it'd be very easy to jump off of that and and uh bring in the electric and broadband. Not not inexpensive but easy. >> Thank you. Any other comments from the board thoughts?
>> I sure I I had one and I I think the residential use is great. I don't have any problem with that. I I just wonder if uh losing light industrial in the long run is a is a problem. I don't know. I mean, there's 400 some acres of
light industrial in the county, so I don't know if that's a big problem or not, but it's just something that made me think twice. >> Yeah. Um not in my experience in terms of people coming and approaching us as a board to look for additional space for light industrial, but we are receiving a
lot of requests for ability to develop residential Affordable housing is a problem for a lot of the people in the county. Finding a home is a problem for a lot of people in the county to even move into if they have the money. Um, I was talking to somebody this past
weekend about some of the changes in terms of affordable housing. And her comment was, "Yeah, it's easy to work in Cook County, but it's not easy to live in Cook County because of the cost and trying to find housing." So I think this is in keeping with um what we've heard
from other departments in the county and it's in keeping with our experience of how people have approached us to open up additional land for residential development make it available for that which is also driving the Roso edition thought process >> and I appreciate that you've considered
it and made your valued decision as to why you don't think it's the right way to go. Yeah. >> Um, you know, land owners have have options now. Um, with that, do I have a motion? Uh, anybody want to make a motion to approve? That's what I'm hearing.
>> Um, do we have any staff findings? >> We do have the staff findings. Um, >> needed to be added. >> So, let me bring that >> page 191 out of 211 of the packets.
page nine of 18 if you're on the screen. >> So, um >> 191 are you >> That'd be one of those ones where we'd wanted to consider, you know, if we reviewed the findings. I mean, I've read them now two or three times. >> Um >> if we approve it with >> Well, Mr. Chair, I'd be willing to make
a motion to approve it based on what the staff report has been. >> So, there's really there's no variances or anything. This is just a straight reszoning of it and it matches the the existing map so to speak fairly well. >> So with that and no conditions at this
point and no conditions. Yeah, I'd make I'd make a motion to approve with no conditions that we make the reasoning. >> All right. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I. >> Any opposed? Not hearing any. Motion passed. >> Thank you.
>> So that will go to the county board of commissioners at their next meeting. Right. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you all. >> Just a note for our board, just a reminder with reszones, there isn't really discussion for conditions because it's kind of a binary thing. >> Okay. >> Um >> I meant conditions, not findings. >> Yeah, findings.
>> No way. Little brain fog. >> All right. Item E for discussion proposed amendments to the Cook County zoning ordinance number 37. >> F please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jana, would you
mind getting the PowerPoint on the screen again? Thank you. >> So, you'll recall, I believe it was our October or November meeting last year. I ran this concept by you. So in the fall time of last year, uh the H director and
myself held a series of meetings throughout the community to introduce and have conversations about this residential open space overlay district that was adopted last year. And through those community conversations, we did hear some concerns from people saying, "How are you going to decide where this
should go?" Essentially, if I could categorize all the conversations I had. Um, and so when you look at the map, uh, we outlined eligibility criteria with Rosa. We said it's only eligible for F2 and F3 zone districts, the 10 and the 5
acre minimum lot sizes within a half a mile of a state or county road or township road. Um, and nonshorland, not within 1,000 ft of a lake. And those were what we set eligibility criteria as. And then also recognizing that just because you're eligible, you may not be
suitable. Not every parcel that's showing up yellow on that eligibility map may be a good place for higher residential development in the county. So if you think way at the tip of the arrowhead trail, there's that's not really a place where we want to see really dense small lot coverage. Um but
maybe somewhere along our county roads within a certain distance from town or otherwise. So, um, one approach to this would be, uh, that that is in the set of proposed zoning ordinance amendments is when we go through a reszone process,
similar to what we just did right now. Um, those questions that we just went through for a reason aren't really very helpful in talking about the idea of suitability for the Roso district. Um, so the idea is that we would be tacking on an extra set of questions for the board to be considering when you're
vetting a Roso Reszone. Essentially things that if we have neighbors in the audience who have concern about higher density residential development gives you the questions to ask to um come up with unbiased facts to, you know, support whatever decision that you feel
is suitable for that proposal. Um, so they're asking questions about um proximity to services and the value of the land. You know, if you got 40 acres of just wetland and someone says, "I want to create roso here." That's not really a suitable location for
residential development. So um these are the kinds of questions that are more um concept level because we're not expecting someone to come in with a reszone request having done significant investment into the property. This is supposed to be kind of a preliminary step that a developer can take to see,
hey, what do you guys think? Can I get into this re roso district, then after they get into it, then they invest the money to get the surveyor and the septic designer and all those things that are very costly for developers to actually do the preliminary platting phase. So, I hope that gives a broad overview. This
is meant to help give you guys better questions to ask as you consider is a property suitable to be reszoned into Roso essentially. So, with that, there's a series of different um criteria that we outlined and we did public noticing for this. It was noticed um I believe in
in late December or early January. I went on WTIP. I did a little blurb with Kirsten on there. Um trying to get the word out and I've not received any written correspondence during the written comment deadline. I I did get one guy who wrote me the next day and
said he liked the idea, but it was after the written comment deadline, so it's unofficial. Um, but I, you know, I think this is such a new idea. I think folks have a hard time really being very critical of it. But I want to be proactive in the way that as people potentially may do latch on to this
idea, we've got questions for you guys to be asking to create findings to support your decision. And how are you going to think when you look at a map of where Roso is eligible within that distance of the road, within that zone district, uh, everywhere throughout the county? What makes one spot okay? and
what makes another spot not okay? That's essentially the set of findings and questions that we want to adopt into the zoning ordinance. And this would be its own little section under standard reszones. So a standard reszone would ask normal reszone questions, but then really the the meat of it is this new
set of criteria that we've outlined. So that is more or less what I what I have for you and kind of what's outlined in this whole packet. >> Okay. Thank you. Um FYI, I've already been approached in discussion about this. I did send the person your way. >> Okay. >> Used to sit in this chair >> a
>> few years ago. >> And then um second item I saw the thousand feet offset. Living in a caribou I have a ridge all around the lake. >> So as a crow flies I may be within a thousand feet of the lake but I'm over the top of the ridge sloping away from
the lake. >> Do we need to make a you know a variance process or is the variance process the method of handling that? Um, how would we approach that? Because we're going to have people that are going to have 40 acres sitting somewhere. It's going to
We have a lot of lakes. >> Right. The the purpose of avoiding the lake setback is because that will trigger us into the DNR regulations >> and they get very sensitive about high density within Shorland areas. So, when
we were first putting together all of the the residential open space overlay district itself, um, and I worked with my DNR colleagues, I said, you know, what do you think about this higher density residential development? They said, you know, if we can stick it to the rivers and keep the open space in
the rivers, that's going to be a much easier permitting pathway. Um, I think if we start opening this up to that area within a thousand feet of the lakes, it's going to have regulatory push back from the DNR. And then also, um, I want
to express we want to be consistent with the message. And ever since this was initially conceived, we're trying to avoid the trouble areas, the areas that are going to be more sensitive to neighbors complaints. And so, one of my early earlier groups I reached out to
was the Cook County Coalition of Lake Associations. And with that group um they were really interested to know are we are we talking about this on lakes shore. I said I'm thinking keeping it away because the whole goal is to target the land that may not be very expensive
but is being underutilized and primarily there's lots of demand for lakeshore property in Cook County. It's it's those lands that are further away from the lakes that we would want to target. Um you know we can think through it a little bit more if there's like a corner of the lot within the thousand ft. Um,
but generally speaking at this point in time, we're just trying to keep this relatively as simple as possible since we are kind of creating a new a new type of vehicle, so to say. >> Okay. So, that would be one where the the 40 acre plot may there, but the thousand foot line lands a third of the
way into the system and so that the rest of the lot could be used, that 40 acre parcel. >> I mean, we we'd have to think through this a little bit more. We haven't had situations like that come up yet. So I mean the easy answer would be >> the one I've been talking about has that
thought process maybe we might be in this boat a lot faster than we think. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I I haven't I haven't been ready for that. That's not really what I was prepared to talk about with this today because the suitability that's more of like the actual eligibility criteria that you're talking about.
>> I I am but you know we're putting a thousand feet in there. Today's favor is tomorrow's requirement. >> Yeah. Yeah. And Brad brings up a good point. Does the shorland overlay exclude the entire parcel or just the portion of
the parcel that's in the shoreland zone? >> The easy answer would be for someone to do an administrative subdivision to get that part of the parcel out of it so that it's >> so there would be a method to do that for them. >> Yes. But when we've done an administrative subdivision, wouldn't that now limit the number? So at 40
acres, I can put in certain number of homes in the Roso. I administratively cut off a third of the land. Now it's 27 acres. And does that reduce the number? >> It probably would. >> Okay. >> Yeah,
>> probably would. But would we allow kind of that split zone split development within the shoreland zone? They could stick with the F3 lot size >> outside the shoreland zone. They'd be in the Roso overlay and therefore they could have a higher density on that
portion of the parcel. Mhm. >> So that I don't know to me that makes sense cuz I always worry about increased density within that shoreline zone. Higher higher the amount of runoff is the higher the impact is on >> that's why I stipulated over the top of
the ridge where you're draining away. >> Yeah. I mean that gets a little more complicated. Where does the drainage go? >> Yeah. Well and I I know the parcel that I'm thinking of and I know where it goes and not towards the lake. It's it's one of those things where it's >> it's I'm wondering I'm using this as an
example of do we have this flexibility we'll be looking for in the future >> around this because if we go down these roads most of these roads were run to go by the lakes. >> We put that flexibility in for rivers. >> The original versions of this said we'll stay out of all shoreland areas and then
recognizing we've got a river every time you throw a rock somewhere in this county that there needed to be some flexibility for that. And so the way we built that into this is that the open space area, if a river goes through there, the shoreland of the river can be in the open space area. And so that's
how we're being more protective of shoreland areas in that sense. But the lakes because just because those are a more sensitive area with user groups and >> um I've done I've dealt with the Caribou Lake Association for 15 years.
>> Yeah. My goal with creating I mean this really is a very unique thing that does not exist somewhere. This was not us piggybacking on a triedand-true model. So I was really aiming for the most protective method for our county to roll this out without getting into legal
quagmires essentially. >> All right. No, I'm in favor of it. I just These are some thoughts that came to mind as we were looking at that. When I saw that thousand feet I was Okay, Mr. >> Chair. Yes. Um,
so if you have part of a part of a lot that's within 1,000 ft of the shoreline, it's still going to be required to deal with state regulations regardless. Correct? >> Mhm. >> So there's that protection already and it may cause a situation in which you
don't want to deal with it anyway. The other would be that there's always a variance process >> and so there is that flexibility if there's a variance for a specific situation, a specific property that you can apply later. Um, I read through it
fairly well and it seemed to me as though you did try to think of all the normal things that we would try to deal with and avoid. So, I'm in favor with it as as it is. Right. >> Yeah. I think also just looking at this,
I think it helps an applicant present their case in a clearer way. Right. When they come for this reason, they they know what we want to hear about when they come and and speak rather than just a general idea of of Rosa. So, I think it's really helpful to have this
language in there. >> Yeah, I agree. And a lot of this stemmed from the meetings that you had, am I right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um, any further discussion?
>> This is this is basically a discussion item tonight, right? Or is this an action? >> Well, there be a public hearing. So, this was public notice. So, >> I mean, but we aren't taking any actions tonight. >> There there would be there would be holding a public hearing for the public to provide comments and then a
recommendation to the board of commissioners. If you want to adopt it also if you want more time >> there's no you can table it too if you want to. >> All right. Thank you. Um the uh openness to public comment. Does any public want to make comment on the
Roso? >> Seeing none. Thank you. We'll close the meeting and turn to our discussion. I'll get used to getting order yet. I don't have anything. I would I would make a motion to push it.
I mean, Eva has worked on it to get it to the next step. >> I think >> motion to approve. >> Yes. >> Motion to approve. >> To get it to the next >> to the commissioners. >> Commissioners. >> I'll second that. >> All right. All in favor of the motion to
approve this as drafted for >> I >> I >> I opposed seeing hearing none. Thank you. >> Motion pass. >> Discussion. >> All right. Jan
have a motion to adjurnn the planning. >> Not quite yet. Not quite yet. Still got to go back to top. >> Nice try, Brad. I thought this was going to be part of the board of adjustments. >> So, it's also on the board of adjustment. >> I know. All right. >> Oh, yeah.
>> All right. So, this next item, if I may, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, please. >> Is the vertical bridge conditional use permit amendment. This is a a request to a conditional use permit that was granted uh 2024-8 CUP
for the modification in the location of 195 foot self-supported lattice tower with a 4ft lightning rod for a total height of 199 ft to be located within a 100x100 lease parcel on tax parcel 20-230-3300. And as a note, as we've already noted,
this conditional use permit amendment is in conjunction with a variance setback request which will be reviewed by the board of adjustment immediately following the planning commission meeting. The subject property includes 58.61 acres. The parcels contained entirely
within the forest agriculture recreation district F1. Towers are listed conditional use within that district. And this is the new tower location is within shoreland area within the northshore management zone. Vertical bridge is requesting an amendment to
conditional use permit 2024-8 CUP to allow the relocation of the previously approved tower site within the same subject parcel. The proposed amendment is necessary due to the presence of wetlands on the property and the requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, which requires applicants to avoid wetland impacts
where feasible through a process called sequencing. The original conditional use permit was approved by the Cook County Board of Commissioners on December 3rd, 2024. The approval authorized the construction of the 195 ft self-supported lattice tower with a 4ft lightning rod for a total
height of 199 ft to be located within the 500 ft lease area. The parcel is owned by Richard and Lorie Evans of Next to Caribou LLC and the lease agreement with Vertical Bridge LLC is for a term of 50 years. The proposed tower site is not located within a designated wireless
telecommunication district. As a result, the 2024 application for the original conditional use permit required review under the tower facilities request policy to determine whether the proposal met the county's prioritized service needs. During that review of the original conditional use permit, the
planning commission found that the project met priority number one, public safety, as defined in appendix B of the Cook County Tower ordinance by improving service coverage along the Highway 61 corridor for public safety. The map on the screen is showing the original
conditional use permit approval. That's where the yellow triangle is. And then um to the east there with the overlay site plan is the new proposed location. The yellow circle around the yellow triangle is that 1,00 foot radius. So
that original conditional use permit location was meeting the 1,00 foot from all residential structures nearby. Um and then the new location is within two locations, which we'll get to in a moment. So the red uh triangle and circle is that new location. So I hope
that can show up on your screens relatively okay. If you want me to pause on any of these images, just let me know. Um, so the the conditional use permit was approved with the findings and conditions. I did provide that list of findings and conditions because this involves two ordinances, the tower
ordinance and the zoning ordinance. There's two sets of um findings of fact to create um as outlined in both of those ordinances. And in your packets, I did red text for the original findings that felt that they needed to be amended for this proposed amendment to that
original conditional use permit. Um primarily it is the distance um item D the proximity of the tower to residential structures within residential properties. Um and then the height or the elevation of the leased area and the shorter township sub area
plan has since been updated and again the proximity to neighboring structures. Um the reason for the conditional use permit needing to be amended uh the what's on your screen now is the wetland delineation. So the purple bluish color
and green is the identified wetlands that were identified last year um following that original conditional use permit approval. And one of the conditions of approval was that the property meet the state um wetland conservation act. So that original site location was problematic with that
condition of approval. Um, for background again, so the site plan that you'll see on the left is the original conditional use permit and then on the right is that amendment location just trying to provide comparison to that tower relocation. So, it's getting
pushed proposed to get pushed closer to Highway 61, closer to the property to the east of the subject property. for zoning considerations. The properties within the F1 zone district. The principal purpose of the F1 district
is to provide for forest management, agriculture uses, and recreational activity in the less developed areas of the county. Relay towers are a listed conditional use in any zone district in Cook County as outlined in section 10.03 of the Cook County zoning ordinance. The revised location is within the Northshore Management Zone of Lake
Superior and designated shoreland. The proposed project location is outside of the established communications district. As noted in the findings, one key reason for this tower uh conditional use permit being granted in 2024 was the finding that the tower provides a public safety
need. Finding number two listed the value of the proposed services as defined in the tower facilities request policy. The planning commission indicated priority number one, public safety, would be met along the Highway 61 corridor with the development of this tower. Per appendix B of the Cook County Tower Ordinance, priority of tower
related services towers provide ordered by priority of support by the county. Number one, public safety. Um on your screen is the zoning map and also the homesteaded properties within this area.
The parcel surrounded by private property to the north, east, and south. Zoning for this parcel and northward is F1. zoning south of this parcel and along Lake Spear's single family residential R1. I provided the purposes for each of those zone districts in your pocket. This parcel borders Lake County
to the west. The zoning on the Lake County side of the property is public commercial reflecting Caribou River Wayside Rust and Lake County owned land. Forest recreation inland from Highway 61 and single family residential along Lake Superior. In Lake County, the PC zone district is described as a district that
provides for the preservation and enhancement of publicly controlled protected natural resources while allowing for environmentally sensitive recreational development and enjoyment of residents and visitors within Cook County. Many of the private parcels in this area are non-homesteaded. Homesteaded parcels are indicated in
orange in that parcel uh on the screen. Uh fall zone requirements. Well, first, uh, photo simulations. I, uh, didn't put all the photo simulation snippets in your packet because I felt that that was getting a little lengthy, but it is in the applications for the packet. So, um,
just a series of photo simulations that were provided within the application materials. Um, the view one is what that currently looks like. Uh, then the after, I did a little red line to point out where that tower is in that screenshot there. I'm not sure if you
guys can pick that up on your screens. Okay, next one. Um, you'll see that red line pointing it out on the horizon in view number two. Do you see it? >> Okay. And then view number three. And
then another red line. So these are submittals from the applicant within their application just following underneath the um site location characteristics type questions. All right. So, for fall zone requirements, the tower setback requirements, um the
Cook County Tower ordinance outlines setback requirements for towers. It says that they should be 1,000 ft from a residence or residential structure. Um but if they're within 500 ft, they need a variance. And there is a flexibility in the tower ordinance that the tower
company could have gotten a signed letter from one of the adjacent property owners within that 500 to 1,000 ft. that would have avoided the variance but they did not get those signed letters. So we are here ask that's what the variance is for after this but right now all you are
looking at is whether asking whether or not the question is is it okay to relocate the tower within this parcel. This is not a variance hearing for that part of things. Um so the tower is identified as 163.8 ft from the nearest
property line the Kamach property to the north and east. The application includes the fall zone letter signed by a professional engineer which states that the tower is designed to fall within a radius of 155 ft which is within the property boundaries of the subject parcel. Um I wanted to provide you a
little bit more detail about the fall zone and the like the the classifications for the tower. So I did ask our MIS department to provide some context and that memo was provided to you I believe. Um but essentially his determination was that this tower is a pretty standardly designed tower. It is
meeting the standards that are typical for this type of tower in our region. Uh for wetlands that is the big site condition that has created the need to have this um conditional use permit amendment. So um site conditions
wetlands and compliance with the Minnesota weight wetland conservation act are the primary reason for the cup amendment. Following the approval, it was determined that wetlands were present in greater prevalence than initially understood. Uh, figure G in your packets illustrate the wetlands identified in green and purple on the
property along with the proposed relocation to avoid wetland impacts. Wetland regulations require a process to review alternative options to minimize wetland impacts before approving the mitigation of wetland impacts. Mitch Travis, the Cook County wetland specialist, has provided a technical
memo with regard to the cell tower placement and wetland regulations. In summary, the new cell tower location represents the least amount of wetland impacts for the project to occur. However, a third location was discussed during the wetland review process located northwest on the far side of the
wetland complex. It was determined that this location is feasible to be an alternative placement for the cell tower from a wetland regulation standpoint. It would result in wetland impacts that would need to be mitigated for through the purchase of wetland credits. However, if the variance is denied, that
location may be considered by the applicant as a feasible alternative from a wetland permitting standpoint. Um, with response to the option B, the applicant did provide uh details as to why they want the planning commission to
consider option B as not a option from their standpoint. I do believe Mike is going to go into that and further. I just put some of that information in your packet that he had provided me. So I will leave him to put that explanation forward to you during his time here. Um
for public noticing the 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 and Shorter Township. Uh for those of you
that paid a lot of attention to dates, you'll notice that some of the written comment letters we received were from before those public notice dates, that is because we had series of public notices that went out back when we thought that we had all the information we needed. And so, um the neighbors have
been very patient with us as we sent out a public notice and then said, "Oh, the hearing has been delayed." So, um some of those comment letters were received and so they have been included in this packet. Um but that's why there's some date uh confusion perhaps with some of those. Uh but the location of the tower has not changed that entire time. Just
want to be very clear about that. Uh five written comments were received by adjoining property owners and the US Forest Service during the written comment period. Kenneth McKver was concerned about decreased property values and other concerns. Doug Mock opposed the location noticing the variance in the CUP amendment. Trisha
Sacket opposed to the request. Feels the tower will detract from the natural beauty of the landscape and is outside of a communication district. Concerned about the lighting at night, opposed of deviations from tower ordinance, wants a tower located further inland or elsewhere if permitted, strict adherence to lighting and material restrictions.
Paul and Patricia Renias opposed the request, expressed concerns related to health and safety and property value decrease. And Robert Burrow opposed to the request due to visibility and property values. and the US Forest Service uh recognized that this property abuts federal property and reminded the property owner to stay within private
property boundaries and not to encroach or trespass on federal lands. All the original comment letters are in your packets as well. Staff recommendation for consideration. An amendment to the conditional use permit is a review process which can only evaluate that
part of the original conditional use permit proposed to be amended. The planning commission and board of commissioners should focus on findings and conditions that bear a relationship to the new location of the tower. The original conditional use permit has already been approved and conditions regarding that approval cannot be
changed unless they're directly related to the new location request. The planning commission should consider potential findings and conditions and modify, amend or adopt as they determine appropriate after the public hearing for recommendation to the county board of commissioners. I have put in some draft
findings um that are in red under that section towards the end. Um just to recognize that there will be certain uh findings that would need to be amended. If you recommend that this be approved or or if you recommend it be denied, it also would need to come up with findings
as well. Um and that's all I have for you. I hope that that relatively helped clear things up. >> Yeah, I found it to be pretty help helpful. Um it so
the um company is here to address. Would you approach the mic please? >> Yes. >> State your name and address. >> I can you >> Oh yeah, that's fine. >> Is that okay? >> Good job. >> That would be easier.
>> Good afternoon. Good evening. Uh my name is Mike Bnick. I'm with a company called LCC Telecom Services. We're located at 10700 West Higgins Road, Sweet 240 in Rosemont, Illinois. Um, I believe staff has pretty much outlined most of the
items that we discussed. Do you by chance have that map that showed the two alternatives from uh Mitch by chance to put it up there? >> Um, the one with the option B outlines, >> option B and the A. >> All the things I show had in that PowerPoint. What's
>> it's in it's in your packet. So in addendum two um but basically as was mentioned we applied back in 2024. We were granted approval of the cell tower
in December uh I believe December 3rd of that year. Um, obviously as was mentioned, there's wetland issues on the property and we were working through trying to get uh going with the building permit when we ran into the issues with
the the wetlands that had to be resolved. Um, we've had multiple conversations with uh Mr. Travis and Miss Maxwell trying to get this situated. We came back in July of last year, applied. However, we were waiting
because um Mr. Travis was trying to set up a meeting with the is it the TE I believe it's called >> technical evaluation panel. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, we were trying to get that meeting and it kind of uh staggered a little bit and we finally had that
meeting and we put to one of the things he had sent us was a map that showed um two options on it. And one of the options, I've got got them included in your packet that we submitted. Um,
option A and option B. The option B was shown on the screen uh as the the one further to the west along the uh Lake County line. The other was option A choices. These were ones he identified
that met the criteria of staying out of the wetlands. And that's how we kind of came to the the location in here in that pocket. So just to be clear, that's how we came to um you know, he didn't design
the site. He just provided the the guidance as to where we could and couldn't go. Um, now as far as I did some further research and one of the items that came up in the original hearing,
um, there was a lot of discussion about um, the location on the property, why we couldn't go further back to the the back end of the property and one of the things that we had was T-Mobile's radio frequency engineer showed up and I
believe it was at the county board level where that question came up. Yep. Okay. And he explained the concept of shadowing. And one of the items that as we get further back on the property, you get what's called shadowing. Those trees
um block the signal. Uh trees, especially um you know, conifers uh will block a signal. And the main objective of the site was to cover Highway 61.
And um basically the reason we could not locate in the um the overlay districts was the closest one was in the Luden area and it's approximately 20 m away. A cell signal typically will cover between
3 to 6 mile radius. And if you go up along Highway 61, there is uh an American Tower site that is approximately 6 milesi to the south and there is a one owned by SBA Communications to the north about the
exact same distance. So this site was chosen to meet the the coverage objectives along Highway 61 and it's literally just about a perfect separation between those two towers. That's how we came to this this location. Now in looking at the
elevation um the road at this at highway 61 at this location at the street is 653 ft above sea level. The original location was 781 ft. Um option B is 872
ft whereas option A is 735 ft. So you're talking a very significant difference in elevation which means that the signal at the option B would shoot over the road. It would not provide the the necessary coverage that we need along the road. Um
so that that's one of the critical um issues in looking at the the two locations. Um again it was one of the items that came up was the fall zone. the fall zone. We are approximately 163 feet to
the north property line, the Kamachis property. The fall zone letter states that 155 ft is the expected um fall distance, which would mean that the the tower would in the unlikely event of a tower failure would remain on the um
next Caribou property. Um and it's significant. I provided in um the addendum number two I have the tower drawings and the tower calculations that were provided. So this um the fall zone
letter isn't something that's randomly uh provided. It's something that is based on the design of the tower. So it it is a a living document that proves that that's how because what happens is an engineer a tower is designed to fall
like this. It it collapses down to it onto itself. They're not designed to fail, but they're designed with a failed point. And at that point, what they literally do is put in a little less structural members so that the tower
would collapse onto itself. Um, and that that top portion that collapses would hang down until it could get, you know, serviced and repaired. So, it doesn't literally tip over. So, it it tips within that 150 ft radius. Um,
as Miss Maxwell mentioned, I did provide an email uh outlining the option B um issues that we would have if we were to go back there. Um, first off, the tower site needs to be accessed 24/7
and with all the snow in this portion of the state, the road would be dangerous at best for technicians to visit on a routine basis, let alone in an emergency. Option B also has issues with shadowing as I just mentioned,
um, which again we discussed very thoroughly uh, at the time of the original approval. And so going any higher would would create that shadowing. Um the also if you look at um the map the
contour map of option B there's significant uh terrain issues and to put a a cell tower you have to have somewhat of a flat surface. It it just it won't work on that that type of terrain.
Um again item three the coverage objective is to provide coverage along the highway. Most of the land to the west is vacant vacant land and coverage will still reach the houses to the north and east. So there are some residents back up on the ridge. They will still
get coverage as well as the superior hiking trail for people using it. So they'll they'll still get the benefit of the coverage but again the shadowing it needs to be lower. Um the not that this is necessarily uh an issue you guys have
to resolve. It's the cost of construction would basically make uh option B impractical. It's just the the access road that would have to be in there um is like 3,000 ft long. Not to mention we are crossing significant amounts of wetlands to get
back there. Um yeah, it's approximately 2,800 feet. I I said about 3,000. Um, and then option A is the most appropriate location. Um, most most of the items I've already
covered, the fall zone letter is certifies that it would collapse onto the property. Um, it's it's a certified letter from a a licensed engineer. So, it's it's a valuable uh document. Um,
but that's basically um what we're looking at. And just to clarify, and this came up in the original hearing, that the township said sent in correspondence on the original application basically saying that this is a significant area that they need
coverage for due to health and safety issues for emergency responders. So, um that's basically it. That's why we're moving the tower. It is coming closer to the road. Um, also just a point of
clarification, there is the SBA tower that's 6 milesi north of here. I measured um and it's approximately 986 ft back off the road, whereas this one is going to be uh similar in scope. It's
going to be about the same distance back. >> So, >> all right. Thank you. Um, >> and I would, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Uh, I'd like the the opportunity to rebut because I know you're going to have a bunch of people that are going to want to speak and I'd like instead of lengthening the
meeting, I'd rather just respond to the comments. >> Oh, you want to to the written comment? >> Well, yeah, I'm sure people are going to going to make comments as well, and I can address those as well. Yeah, I'd say um let's allow the public
to make their comments and then um uh we'll um I think we'll pull you in afterwards. >> That's what I'm looking for. Yes. Thank you. >> Yeah. As we need to. All right. Thank you. Um opening it for public comments. If anybody'd like to approach the mic,
we'd give you name and address. We'd also asked uh you know uh we've read your letters so it we're really mine was really short so I don't get extra time. >> We're just looking for a couple of minutes for >> Yeah. If you want me to filibuster I
certainly can. Um Doug Kamach I live in St. Paul 1410 Sheffer. Our address here which is new is 9437. I'm the guy whose uh residence our little cabin is in the
shadow 500 and whatever feet. Um can I got in trouble for asking you a question last time so I hope I don't get in trouble now. So the the the I I still a little murky on the on the conditional use and the variance.
Do we get to comment on both or do we get comment just for this? Am I just commenting on the conditional use permit or am I comment or are we going to have another opportunity to comment on the variance?
>> Um, yes, M. Maxwell. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. I only speak when he says I can policy. >> Um, so this right now is the conditional use permit. So this is reviewing is a different location on this property for the tower varying from the original
conditional use permit. Is that suit is that meeting all of those standards? That's what this review is. This is not specifically the variant setback, but the setback from the residential structures is certainly a part of the discussion. So just to clarify, it does feel a little redundant, but they are
two very distinct processes and their own findings need to be attached to those B to those processes. >> Thanks. It's just a to me it's well I'll talk about it here in a second but just before I get to my comments I
hope you've read the fall zone letter because it says and I I've got it right here. It is our it does the county says certify the letter says it is our understanding that this self-support tower structure will be designed such that if a failure
were to occur due to a significant storm or other event the tower would fall within a radius county says certify this says our understanding and it talks a little bit about how that happens but that's what the letter says um this is
why I don't understand the variance conditional use permit. The conditional use permit says that wireless telecommunication towers, including all support structures and security fences, shall be not located
within 1,000 ft of any residence. Without a variance, it does not meet that standard. So, that's my that's my confusion there. Um uh and it's within that fall zone. my on the conditional
use. My other problem is, and I have lots of problems with it obviously because I'm the most effective. On page eight, there's a question that says, "Will the proposed use have an adverse effect on adjacent properties?"
And it clearly, yes. Clearly, I have a cabin that still in progress, but it's considered a residence. Um, and so it has an adverse effect on on me and my property. The
and I think the county probably agrees with that. That's why they put the prohibition of 1,000 ft unless I sign off. And I think Neva said um I don't remember how she phrased it, but said a resident signs off. The
ordinance says all residents signs off. And you can fact check me on that, but I'm I'm 99 and a half% sure that it says all residents must sign off. And they've got they have two that are within that zone. Neither us have um signed off. Um
and I think the company knows that they have an adverse effects because in the letter it says that they offered McKvers money to sign off and if you're going to offer him money, there's an adverse effect there. Um, so that's why I'm
asking you to deny the conditional use permit. If I could talk about I'll talk instead of talking in the variance about option B that communication with Mitch Travers. Option B was just an idea that they had and he said we could put it there and it's just an example of a
place that could work. Half the property is wetlands. I get it. We want to save wetlands. But he assured me that there is a sequencing way to mitigate the wetlands there and put it back away from there.
Does it have to be at 800 ft? No, it but you can sequence and I can share the email if you want. You can sequence your way through that wetland and get a tower there and it would actually be closer to their original place, their original
site. So if they can sequence through there and have the same um mitigation and zero loss of wetlands cuz that's what sequencing does and then it doesn't unpack me and McKvers.
I think that's a win-win. I think then we get a cell tower. You cover your safety. I'm not impacted. I'm not adversely affected. the um and the adverse effect is if I can find my last note here and I'll
finish up um that through a uh a um local real estate person that asked if they put a cell tower 500 some feet from my cabin is that going to affect my property values and it was yes
clearly yes didn't know the details so couldn't say how much the and so they said it would be the impact would be greater if um you could hear humming or if there was maintenance. They talk about once a
month maintenance in there. I know somebody friends of a friends were on the Echo Trail, lived on the Echo Trail about 1,000 ft from a cell tower that they put in and they moved to Elely because of the humming and that's so I'm asking that you you deny the conditional
use. let them find a different different place for this where we can do the wetland mitigation. Um >> Okay. >> And I think that's what I have. Thank you. >> Anyone else for public comment? And um you know, anything unique public comment
that says I agree with him is fine. You know, it's uh but recitation of the comments is we're paying attention. Uh, Mr. Chairman, thank you for being
liberal with the time and commissioners, committee members, and uh, members of the public that may be watching this uh, hearing. Welcome. I am Paul Renison, mentioned previously by uh, Neva Maxwell is very expert and you're blessed to
have such a good uh, asset here in the county. I'd like to say that. and uh I'm of 9380 West Highway 61. I have three points. One, loss of county property tax revenue. Two, increased
wildfire risk. And three, the tower as proposed is actually obsolete. Cell phone towers can significantly reduce property values in residential areas. Studies show homes losing up to
9.78% in value where Tower is within visibility range. Surveys reveal 94% of home buyers are less interested in purchasing property near cell towers.
The tower proposal shows the tower visible from Highway 61 and residents on Highway 61. The California Association of Realtors classifies cell towers as a hazard and nuisance, requiring appraisers to adjust
property values due to their impact on marketability. These findings indicate that the presence of cell phone towers can have a significant negative impact on property values, particularly in residential areas. Point number two, increased fire
risk. The proposed tower lacks fire detection. For example, ring cameras offer now firewise for detecting wildfires in a community. Fire protection is at least 30 minutes
away stationed in Silver Bay and Schroeder municipalities. Wildfire probability is enhanced by tree stress around the tower's proposed location. stress, according to studies, results in
increased leaf loss and branch decay. A wildfire in the proposed area would spread rapidly before fire first responders could arrive. My third point is obsolescence. I have my phone here. This is a T-Mobile
phone. It's not a real fancy one. It's not brand new. T-Mobile is now using 650 satellites and Starlink to fill the gaps in the tower proposal. The county public safety priority number
one use requirements are met without the tower. The requirements are exceeded by T satellite and app support using Starlink satellites. T-Mobile provided the following statement, and I quote, "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 cannot reach. T satellite is now offered for my cell phone, for example, $10 more a month. It's on my renewal plan. This gap filling technology solves the county
board's communications concerns and is in the use today. In summary, the county and recommendations of this committee should be to withdraw approval of the proposed hour as obsolete, a wildfire danger, and
will cost the county property tax revenue. If you have any questions for me, I would take them at this time. >> No. Thank you, sir. >> You're welcome, sir. Hello,
I'm Patricia Renison and um my >> your address too, please. >> Oh, 9380 uh West Highway 61. Um my con my concern is health and cell phones or towers have
been um they are known to produce um um problems with headaches, problems with brain fog um and they have been linked to cancer as in California has said and the farther distance away you have to
the cell towers the better off you are. Sprint actually removed all their cell towers from um school areas because of their you know their higher risk for children.
And we have um we have grandchildren and we want them to come visit but um with um a cell tower and which is really close to us too because we're close to Mckver. Um it is it it's it will be
something that will be a a worry to us and will not make us feel very safe and secure. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Seeing none, we'll close public comment
and uh to the board members. Um discussion >> on the order. Mr. Chair. >> Sure. Typically, we do give the applicant an opportunity to respond to the public comments. >> I was going to incorporate it that way. I just wasn't right to that. I was sort of going to be brought into the conversation.
>> Okay. Um, but next time I'll probably do it your way. Um, okay. And we go to that. The applicant, would you like to go ahead and respond? Sure.
Um, yeah, I wrote down some quick notes on everything. Um, so the fall zone stating it is our understanding they have to put in some sort of a caveat because god forbid what happens if you had a hurric I mean an earthquake
or something like that or um datio wind that was well in excess of what the the normal standards are. So that's just a statement that's in there. As I mentioned, it is supported by the the actual tower drawings. Um, doesn't meet
the standards without the variance. That is correct. We would not, but um that's why we're going on to the next item on the the board of adjustments. Uh, one thing I wanted to to state is I had mentioned to Miss Maxwell when we first
started this that I had some concerns with the way that that ordinance is written with that 1,00 ft separation. It it gives the uh residents a very um
unfair advantage in that without the fall without a letter from them, it's essentially giving them equal footing with the plan commission and the county board in that the county board is ultimately the ones that approve or deny
a request. Whereas, if they choose not to sign a letter, in a sense without a variance, they are doing exactly that. They're they're given the authority to to deny the request. Um,
as far as Mr. Kamacha's property, we're we're approximately a tenth of a mile away from the the proposed structure. That's just, you know, it's a significant diff distance. Um, the sequencing of wetlands, yes, there is that. and we are working with
them, working with the TE board to get everything squared away. Um, loss of revenue, um, fire risk and tower ab obsolescence from Mr. Renasin.
Um, property values. I've I've been doing cell towers now for over 26 years, and this issue comes up all the time. Well, not all the time, but quite often. and studies have been done. Yes, realtors will say whatever, but you you
have not been provided any factual information. It's speculative. Realtors will say, you know, I don't want to be near a house. You know, residents may say that, but that's not necessarily true. Residents want good coverage as
well, and that's what this will provide. Um, as far as California appraisals, again, that's not something that's local here. Um, in the the letter from Mr. Renias
um about the health issues, he cites uh um towers in Germany and I forget the other place. They're not governed by the FCC. Uh they don't have the same regulations we do. So I don't know what those regulations are but that's not gerine to
the the discussion and the bottom line is health concerns are not supposed to be discussed and in the federal telecommunications act of 1996 the um federal government states that
local governments should not be concern concerning themselves with health effects and that's not in disrespect to the board. It's because I I'm guessing none of you are scientists
working in the that field. So the FCC says that we monitor and in fact the the FCC allocates the frequencies that the carriers work under through an auction. When a when a carrier wants to cover an
area, they have to bid for the the spectrum through the FCC. and the FCC has already deemed that signal to be safe. There's two different types of energies. There's ionizing and nonionizing.
Ionizing energy is like a microwave. Uh baby monitors also uh operate on that. And essentially an ionizing frequency heats the cells in your body. A wireless signal is nonionizing. It does not heat
the cells in your your body. So therefore there are no health associated. The only way you could literally get any type of a negative brain fog or uh headache would be to stand within approximately 4T of the antennas. And I'm not talking at the
ground. I'm talking at their level. So you'd have to have one hell of a ladder to get up there to to stand in front of it to and that's a prolonged period of time. So there are no health related u impacts. Um, as far as the satellites
and Starlink and all that, that's not that's not going to cover the area. That's just additional coverage back into areas such as out in the wooded areas back um where there's a lot less population.
Um, so in in the fact that Sprint removed towers from in and around schools, I don't have any idea, but Sprint doesn't exist in the industry anymore. T-Mobile actually um purchased their their spectrum. So part of that
decommissioning was redundancy in cell sites. So um I believe we've meet all the criteria for the approval. And again I want to remind you that this is not a conditional use permit. It's an amendment to the existing conditional
use permit. if if we were denied and could work out with all the wetlands and all that, technically that tower could go right where it was. So, I'm not trying to sound blunt, but that that is the case. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um, now board discussion. Um, couple of things. Uh, I and Paul, I don't know if you were here, Jeff, when we did this the first time. >> You were. Okay. So, some of the things
that we looked at back then, um I myself went and talked to the fire chief for Schroeder and the um he's since retired and the head of the EMS team and both of them expressed a strong concern with
um having volunteers down at that end of the county and them never responding to calls for emergency services to come in and help out with a fire or um you know if someone was hurt from an EMS perspective. So that that brought in a
strong waiting for us in the sense of that. Additionally, one of the first things that the commissioners came back to us was about replacing the tower physically to another location so that we could expand coverage up to Kramer Road. And that too was examined and found that we wouldn't really be able to
do that. we we'd move one area over there and then we would end up with interference with the toy tower because now they're too close together. We would have increased shadowing into the area down by uh the county line and so those things were similarly taken into
account. The wetlands at that time of course just didn't seem to have come up or we would have discussed this particular point back then. Um, so we looked at how to move the tower to increase coverage for the citizens of the county, not decrease it. And then we looked at what are we going to do from a
safety perspective because that's like the number one listed item in looking at the cell tower ordinances in this county. It's in conditional use things is number one is like safety items. So it has been an expressed desire to improve coverage and safety for all of
the citizens and the fact that we have so many tourists coming through that area. Many of our EMS folks are responding to far more visitors having accidents than they do citizens. And so there is a constant change over people
that need to have access. Furthermore, it's just recently been for amounts that uh the uh telephone companies in general are getting out of the landline business. AT&T plans to have theirs entirely shut down by 2029. So, anybody who has an existing landline
uh infrastructure on the west end, if it was one of our emergency people, they'd be forced to move over to a cell system anyways or Wi-Fi dialing while they're in their homes because they can get it across the the u the fiber optic that's been pulled to everybody's home. But if they're out
in the yard away from the Wi-Fi signal, they don't get contacted. Um the cell power cell communications does as much to obiate that issue for us as we look at at how we're
looking at how we're um taking care of all of the citizens out on that end of the of the county um in that conversation. So I want to cover some of those points that we talked about in the original proposal here. Now, this is
scope limited in this conversation because we're looking really at what about the conditional use permit and what we originally looked at. And if you had gone through your packets, Neva put the red text in there to show what she
was recommending that we change. Um, I was myself um fine with it. I uh I understand the scope limitations. We did look at the 1996 Communications Act. It's perfectly understandable why the FCC says we're not getting into it up
here. Um, you know, can't speak to everybody, but I don't think any of us is qualified for it. Um, the u um and then the coverage u most people are
looking to have coverage, not people without it that we're running into. So, um, we did talk about sight lines at that one. Um, so we we did kind of address the fact that it would be visible from the road. Um,
we've seen the pictures of what the what it would look like. Um, so most of the time other than the folks that are closer acknowledging your your your position um is uh is not going to be visible or not
noticed. And I think most people are thinking of cell towers as fading into the background. So um any further, you know, other discussions, other thoughts?
That's enough background on it. I have some questions. >> Sure. I believe. >> So the original site was approved for a conditional use permit. >> Correct. um is the and one would assume that
there was some attention to wetlands before that site was approved. >> Yes, please. So during that original approval, they the vertical bridge had an environmental scoping document done
and they had reached out to our office probably like the summer of 2024 and they the company that they had hired I think it was like Lotus Engineering um they wanted to know about architectural or like archaeological items on the site
and we said our office does not store that database but keep in mind we do regulate wetlands and those need to be evaluated. Um, and so those they didn't do a wetlands lineation. Um, this was kind of a a buyer beawware determination
to process the cup saying, "Look, wetlands may change what this looks like. You're kind of going out on a limb without having this information." Um, and that is how we went through this whole cycle. I promise we won't be processing a conditional use permit again where we feel that really we need
to have a wetlandation done first because we would have avoided a lot of heartache if we had had the wetlandation completed initially but um lesson learned on trying to be flexible balancing flexibility with the applicant and also prudent to site conditions that
we can't know with desktop data. So >> So that would have been a condition. >> It was actually that's raised that was a condition we put on the cup. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So then the other question that I have regarding wetlands, is it the the cell
tower site itself that was the issue and the problem or was it the road to it? >> Both. >> Both in where they wanted to place it. Yeah, >> mostly the tower site though. We do still cross. There's a little sliver right at the the uh road. There's a little sliver that we're crossing now
that the the access road followed the same path back. Um, but as you got close past where the proposed tower is now, it was all wetlands back there. In fact, the tower itself was in the green the
green shaded area, which it was smack dab in the middle of it. Okay. >> But the the driveway was a little bit >> Yeah. And we've we've approved things before. We had a person by, you know, who wanted to uh harvest
top soil and there was an existing federal road that had been put in years before that passed through a wetlands and the the feds and the state said just go ahead and do that. Don't be driving past the trailer park with a fully loaded dump truck. It's a lot safer for
you to go out past the fire department. So this would make sense in that um similar circumstances I've experienced in the sense of you know as we talked earlier about throw a rock and hit a stream in this county. >> So we we we understand there's minor
things that have to be adjusted for but we try and keep it that way in terms of protecting the resource as best we can because we have come to understand quite importantly uh in our conversations the importance of wetlands and its filtration for the for our environment in general.
Um, I have a question. I am not familiar with what sequencing is, and I'm wondering if you can explain that to me. A, and B, why can't that be done with the tower in the original spot? >> Great question. Debated putting it in
your packets, chose not to. How do you explain now? So, if someone wants to fill in wetlands, whether it's a driveway or a house or a tower, first the state wetland conservation act says you first must avoid wetland impacts where you can. So, if you've got a wetland right here, you have to put a
longer driveway in to go around the around the wetland rather than cut straight through it. Then, if you're not able to fully avoid wetland impacts, then you need to minimize the impact. So, instead of going through the fat chunk of the wetlands, go through the skinny chunk of the wetlands and impact less wetlands. and then you'll still get
to your desired location. But again, you might have to do a longer road to minimize the impacts. And then if you can't avoid and if you can't well once you've minimized as much as you can, then we get into mitigation. And that's where you purchase wetland credits to
offset the amount of wetland impacts. So um I think with this project still it is looking at that mitigation, but we're still still a process where you have to at least minimize the amount of wetland impacts or avoid them entirely if you can. So the our state wetland conservation specialist, Miss Travis, he
cannot actually approve wetland impacts that mitigation unless there's actually a process to look at the sequencing. So with that application to purchase the wetland credits, you need to show look, I tried to avoid, I tried to minimize, now I need this much wetland credit. I've kind of gone through the process.
>> Okay. And so us going through this is part of that process >> essentially. >> Okay. Y >> and just to be clear too, we met with the D um we met with Mitch the DNR and there was another person >> board of water and soil resources and
then because it's Shorland area, there's also a DNR person on it. Yeah, we had a call be back when we first appi reapplied we we had that meeting and we had discussions about the locations based on that and they they certified
that this location would work as far as they were concerned >> public comments closed. So >> two more things. >> Yes, please. >> One um Gun Patrol Trail Volunteer Fire Department doesn't use cell phones. They all use pagers. Everybody shows up. Um
and uh we do have winds more than 140 miles an hour on the Gunflint Trail and on in Cook County and it's happened several times in the 40 years I've been here. So the design standard while acceptable and normal um there's a
reasonable chance that tower would fall and if it does fall within its radius because there's a weak point but just to assume that it's not going to fall um it would be incorrect. So just
>> Okay, Jeff, you were putting your hand up, Mr. Lee? >> Um, no. I'm still thinking. >> Okay. >> I I I had my hand up because I dealt with Wetland Conservation Act for 30
years. So I was agreeing with everything that Neo was saying. The um the concern I had with option B was not only the additional increase in going through the uh wetlands was that you start climbing that steep
hill with a road and your wash out potential for cascading soil coming down right into the wetlands is going to be pretty dramatic. Uh we've seen a lot of roads wash out here and heavy rain and that that one that would uh would really
challenge us I think to uh to mitigate that issue. Uh I think procedurally I have more questions for the variance than I do for the conditional use. Honestly, I think looking at what we are actually looking at in this meeting in terms of the
amendment, I'm comfortable with this conditional use amendment. If there's more to talk about on the board of adjustment side, that's where I'm at with this. But Yeah, and I'm I'm going to agree with that. I've read through this several times. Just didn't find anything from a
conditional use permit. >> I'm leaning pretty strongly agreeing with Paul on that. That the conditional use part is an amendment. The variance is is the bigger discussion. I think >> how can the conditional use permit if it
didn't meet one of its conditions, wouldn't it just be null and void? The first one, >> Mr. Chair. Right. The premise when we approve conditional use permits is that it's approved based off of the conditions that that permit was applied
for. That's why we call it conditional use. That applies to the size and scope and the nature of the activity being proposed. So, if this tower was 199 ft and then well, I know 200 feet is a big difference, but let's say they also they want to make it taller. Well, nope. It was 199. That's what you got. It is the
same thing with a condition. So essentially when the board of commissioners approved that original conditional use permit, it was so long as those conditions are met, that use as defined is okay in this size and scope on this property. And so this this conditional use permit amendment is
needed because this was a substantial location change. Sometimes there's a little flexibility. Let's say I had to move 5 feet or something. Um there's a there's like a little room where we feel that's still aligned with the intent of what was approved. But we really try to stick quite closely to that nature of
what was initially approved and what those findings and conditions were that it was approved under. >> So >> So that's why they had to come back is because they couldn't use >> No, I understand that. But I feel like wouldn't if if the conditions weren't met the first time, then wouldn't that
first conditional use permit be done >> and then they have to reapply for a whole brand new one? >> So they're just amending the first one even though the conditions weren't met. And >> Mr. Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. Thanks. Um, Mr. Chair and and B commission members, the uh the original
one still exists in perpetuity so long as those conditions can be met. So, if this if this fails, they can still go back to that original design and still have that in their back pocket. That is an option that they would always have. >> Okay. >> We can't take that away from them. >> Okay.
>> And could sequence the wetland accordingly. >> Correct. because they would >> and build it in the original >> because they're doing the conditions >> through sequencing. >> Got it. >> So ultimately it doesn't matter if we
don't approve it, they still have it. Correct. >> Right. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Right. And then if they elected to do sequencing, they could use the original build site and we uh have some sort of approach to how we deal with the wet lines.
>> Okay. So, I think I'm overthinking and >> yeah, >> that answer my question. >> You know, it's it's uh >> it's good to have these conversations. I don't want people walking out of here um not having the opportunity to get their
things clarified, right? This is this is this is some decisions we make are weightier than others, and this is on that end. >> Yes, Miss Maxwell, >> since we're talking about processing, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to remind us that this board is advisory. So you'd be making a recommendation to
the Cook County Board of Commissioners that would go to them at their next meeting, the last meeting in February. Uh in between that time, approximately within the next half hour, the board of adjustment will be reviewing that variance. So by the time the CU amendment gets forwarded to the commissioners, I will have additional
information for those commissioners that has the variance decision. And so I anticipate the commissioners would take that into their considerations for the CU amendment if that helps give you some relief. The commissioners take in that. >> Do have an additional question then because the board of adjustment decision
is a legal decision not an advisory. Um, it would, you know, so if the variance didn't pass, we'd we basically vetoed the conditional use permit amendment that we just recommended to the board
or >> but it's two things, isn't it? >> Well, go ahead, Neva. Sorry. >> I was say in order for this tower to be in the proposed location, it needs both a variance approval and the CP amendment. >> Mhm. Okay. So, it's it's and
>> and so and then if we don't give them the amendment and we don't give them a new variance, they have to build it in under the conditions of the original cup. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> So, I think because my point there is that
they'd have to find a way to build it within the conditions of the CUP, but they could still build it, >> right? Yeah, if you read those conditions, um it it doesn't say no wetland impacts are permitted. You know, if there was a condition that that suggested zero flexibility for wetland
impacts, then that would make that location a non-starter for the original location. Um but instead, that condition says the driveway access complies with state wetland conservation act and secures necessary grade bill permits through Cook County and a state swip
should the total soil disturbance exceed 1 acre. So, it's it wasn't saying that no wetland impacts were permitted. It was saying that you have to follow the state wetland conservation act regulations. >> Um, my last question for those of you who were here before when this
originally came out and the letters to the public went out, did you guys have the same people report back opposing? >> I have not refreshed my memory fully on that. I'd be uncomfortable making a very solid statement. I do know that some of these neighbors have did object to the
original >> Okay. >> conditional use permit. >> Can I make a motion? >> Mhm. >> You're on the board. You're on the Yes. Uh motion to deny and allow them to pursue the uh
sequencing. Mr. Chair, clarification. So, basically deny >> the amendment to the cup. >> Mhm. >> And allow them to operate under the original CUP conditions. >> How significant are these wetlands?
>> I don't have a a total impact. >> Sure. And I would >> just kind of throw out there to the board though too as the part of the consideration that um in that discussion or presentation with regards to the sequencing um NEA noted that uh you have
to minimize or avoid it is if you can um but if you can't and you're showing that you can't then you have to mitigate and and minimize denying it actually makes it easier for them to go through the sequencing to say yes they they can't do it. So, we will approve the
>> the mitigating and minimizing and >> whatever that takes. So, >> purchase of the credits. >> Purchase of the credits. Yes. >> Right. And and I haven't looked at the Bowser site lately. I don't know what the last time I did a project was 15 years ago and it was like $35,000 an acre for mitigation credits in Cook
County. So, it's not cheap. Oh, I just don't know. >> Um, Mr. Chair, we have a motion on the floor and I will second it. >> Okay. Any further discussion? We have a motion.
>> Um, can I just take a minute to read the findings again? >> Yes. And I would make the recommendation that if this uh I would recommend that the findings be reviewed so that you feel that they're reflective of the motion.
>> Yeah. So on page 15 of those of us who are looking at online item B the value of the proposed services defined towers facilities request policy the approval of the original CUP was based on the finding of this tower met priority number one public safety of providing
greater wireless communication service along highway corridor highway 61 corridor and the development of This tower per appendix B of the Cook County Tower ordinance. The priority of tower related services. Towers provide ordered by priority of support by the county.
Number one was public safety. Moving down to item D since nothing else has been changed. Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries. This tower is requesting a setback relief from 835 ft from the tower to a residential structure to the south.
zoned uh single family residential R1 and 572 feet from the compound perimeter to a newly constructed residential structure to the northeast zone far one. Neither residential structure is homesteaded. The tower is maintaining the required
minimum setback of 500 ft and requesting a variant set back to the relief to be within the 100 of the two to be within 1,000 ft of the two residential structures. modified the elevation to 733 feet in item F
and then added an addendum to item K uh at the end to support public safety services during the initial conditional use permit approval 2024 8 CUP. That completes Nope. Then we go down a
couple more pages. Item two use is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The propos proposed project is on the Cook County Lake County border. West of the parcel is the Lake County with several publicly owned parcels managed by Lake County and the Minnesota DNR.
South of the proposed property parcel own single family residential north and east of the property. The application includes photo simulations of the towers viewed from Highway 61. The tower will be visible from Highway 61, but mature tree forest in this area will minimize the visibility. Other towers are located
along Highway 61. I think we had that in the last one as well. I remember having that discussion. And I think that that concludes the modifications. So,
as we look at the items in question here, um you know, We're really being asked to reject the amendment and so the so is
trying to remember what you said. >> Uh reject the amendment or deny the and and uh they could pro proceed with the sequencing of the wetlands easily more easily at that point or not.
But >> that's supposition. But your position is is that or your motion if you can get that clarified is your um motion is to deny the amendment to the cup.
>> That's my understanding of what I seconded. Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Any further discussion? >> Mr. Sure. It would be quite helpful for me when I bring this to the commissioners if I could have some identified reasons for that um to the
best of your ability. The findings are very dry and and very factual nature, but the commissioners I think would really appreciate to understand some of the context of the discussion that has led to this motion. So I would say that um in general the
board has reviewed the request to move the tower away from the wetlands per the requirements of the original conditional use permit. And so an amendment was proposed to allow the
tower to be moved and the conditional you conditional use permit to be amended so that the tower could be moved to where there was little to no impact of wetlands. And um the road doesn't change with that impact and that wasn't a portion of the
request anyways. And so the um the members of the board having heard public comment and looked at the conditional use permit having a better understanding of the sequencing effect of wetland mitigation
and having discussed that more thoroughly has uh now made a motion to deny the amendments to the conditional use permit and leave it standing as is originally proposed. Is there enough? >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any more further discussion or comment? All right. All in favor of the motion say I >> I >> I >> I >> I
>> All opposed. >> I >> I motion is carried and the conditional use permit amendment is hereby denied. >> Recommended for denial. >> Recommended for denial. Okay. Now, is it appropriate to adjourn
this meeting? >> The planning. >> Do I have a motion to to adjourn the meeting? >> I I move we adjourn this meeting. >> All in favor of adjournment. >> I >> I >> Okay, meeting adjourned.
>> This doesn't look like moved. Nurse.