The variance request arose due to the identification of wetlands on the proposed site, necessitating a shift in the tower’s location. The original conditional use permit approved the construction of a 195-foot self-supporting tower, but this relocation brought the structure closer than the mandated 1,000 feet to two residential structures. The board deliberated on the implication of this proximity, with the applicant stressing the necessity to avoid wetland encroachment rather than financial motivations.

Public comments featured prominently, with residents voicing opposition due to potential impacts on property values, aesthetics, and safety. Doug Kak, a resident, questioned the legality of the variance request, citing issues with the application process and expressing concerns about the tower’s visibility from his property. Paul Renison argued that the tower was unnecessary due to advancements in satellite technology, which he claimed already addressed coverage needs in the area. Additionally, Richard Furlong, representing Doug Kamach, criticized the engineering documentation provided by the applicant and suggested that financial considerations were driving the variance request rather than genuine practical difficulties.

The board grappled with the complexities of granting the variance, especially given the lack of signed agreements from neighboring property owners for reduced setbacks. They were informed of the required 1,000-foot setback and the option to reduce it to 500 feet under certain conditions, but the absence of consent from affected homeowners remained a issue.

Environmental concerns dominated the conversation, with board members emphasizing the importance of protecting wetlands, which are subject to Minnesota’s no net loss policy. A discussion on alternative sites for the tower suggested that more centrally located options could minimize environmental impacts, yet the current proposal fell short in exploring these possibilities. This led to calls for a public hearing to thoroughly assess the environmental implications and proposed mitigations.

The board considered the procedural aspects of the variance request, including the potential to table the application for further negotiations with the applicant, Vertical Bridge. Some members favored this approach to explore alternative locations and avoid a quasi-judicial decision that would result in outright denial. They faced time constraints, with a decision required by the end of the month, and discussed the need for written confirmation from the applicant to extend the processing deadline.

A motion to deny the variance was initially made but later withdrawn to allow for further discussion. The board reviewed the criteria for evaluating practical difficulties, ultimately concluding that the variance did not align with the established decision criteria. They emphasized that any perceived impact on property values was not substantiated by concrete evidence.

In another agenda item, the board addressed a variance request from Dan Anthony Nelson, who sought relief from the bluff setback standards for a cabin construction. The board approved the variance after considering the applicant’s efforts to comply with zoning requirements and mitigate environmental impacts.