The most newsworthy item on the agenda was the proposed cell tower by Vertical Bridge LLC, aimed at improving cellular service along the Highway 61 Corridor. The applicant asserted the tower’s necessity, emphasizing its role in filling a critical coverage gap for emergency services. However, concerns were raised about the tower’s placement and capacity, with the County’s radio communications analyst questioning the applicant’s claims about alternative locations and service efficacy. The analyst noted that while a ridge line could potentially serve the area, the applicant maintained that their chosen site was essential.

Local supervisors and emergency personnel underscored the urgency of the situation, citing inadequate existing infrastructure for first responders. The commission was urged to re-evaluate the tower ordinance to ensure it met community needs, with emphasis on the necessity of adherence to ordinance standards and the review of the application. The applicant presented data on population density along Kramer Road to reinforce their argument, but the commission decided that further deliberation was needed to address the complexities surrounding the tower’s placement and the broader implications for regional coverage.

In a related discussion, Josh Matthews, a radio frequency engineer, provided insights into the tower’s potential impact, noting that obstructions like foliage could hinder signal transmission. The commission ultimately voted to approve the tower proposal with conditions, concluding that the County Board’s queries had been adequately addressed.

The meeting also addressed a rezone application from Mary and Brian Vanor, initially slated for consideration but deferred due to Schroeder Township’s upcoming Town Plan update. Staff recommended the Vanors withdraw their application and reapply post-update to avoid indefinite delays, offering to waive the application fee to ease the financial burden.

Another topic was the variance request from the Chiks for a building project in a resort area, which drew public concern over its impact on local character. Residents, including Julia R. and Andrea Carlson, voiced apprehensions about the project’s size and stormwater management implications, arguing it would alter the area’s essence. Legal and procedural adherence was a focal point, with discussions on whether alternative solutions could mitigate the need for a variance. The commission acknowledged the need for further analysis and potential reopening of the public comment period.

The board also discussed another variance request involving a property development in the Bluff Impact Zone. The proposal required careful consideration of bluff stability and stormwater management, with the commission deliberating on the reasonableness of the request given the property’s unique topography. The board emphasized the importance of aligning with zoning ordinances while assessing the project’s compatibility with the surrounding residential character.

A separate variance amendment from Derrick and Emily Fox was reviewed, regarding a minor roofline extension on their Lake Superior property. The board found the adjustment reasonable and approved the request with conditions to ensure compliance with existing regulations. Similarly, Cassidy Geekus’s request for a reduced setback for constructing a principal structure was considered. Despite previous approvals lapsing, the new application was reviewed on its merits, with the board assessing environmental impacts and adherence to current regulations.