County board to discuss proposed cell tower project changes, Planning Commission recommends denial

Most of the items put forward by the Planning Commission for Board of Commissioner consideration come with a recommendation to approve. On Feb. 24, however, the board will review an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a cell phone tower under a recommendation from Planning to deny it.

Background

The project in question is a 199 ft cell phone tower proposed on a property in Schroeder Township on the western border of Cook County. The project received approval for an initial CUP in December of 2024. The property is off of Highway 61, and county records show the owner listed as Nex2Caribu LLC, with a contact listed as Richard and Lori Evans in St. Paul.

The application for the CUP and other associated paperwork was filed by Michael Bieniek on behalf of Vertical Bridge BTS, LLC, which has leased the property for the purpose of building and maintaining a cell phone tower. The proposed tower would provide a T-Mobile signal to the area, including a portion of Highway 61 that currently lacks tower coverage.

When the original CUP was approved in 2024, one of the conditions was that the project comply with the state Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). At the time of the approval, a full evaluation of the wetlands on the property had not been completed. Once the property was inspected, the originally proposed tower site was determined to be in the middle of a large wetland complex.

Proposing an alternative site

On Feb. 11 the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment heard from Bieniek regarding how Vertical Bridge proposes to navigate the wetlands on the property. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for an amendment to the CUP, which would shift the tower site to an area of the property that was not considered wetland. However, the new location would place the tower within the 1,000 ft minimum distance required from residential structures on neighboring parcels in the Cook County Tower Ordinance Number 47.

The Planning Commissioner heard from several neighbors during the public hearing, all of whom expressed their opposition to the project. Doug Kmoch, who owns an adjacent property, has a structure near the property line. He expressed concern over the fall zone for the tower and the proximity to his property, in the event of extreme weather and tower failure. He and other neighbors all voiced worry that their property values would decrease, and others cited concerns over health impacts and disturbance of the natural beauty of the area.

Bieniek responded to the concerns, saying that no evidence has been presented about property values, the tower would not be lit, and therefor would be less disruptive to neighbors, and stated that the forest in the area would also provide cover for the visual impact of the tower.

The majority of the Planning Commission was unconvinced by Bieniek’s arguments for the new site, however, and that body has recommended to the Board of Commissioners that they deny the amendment to the original CUP. The Planning Commission works in an advisory role and cannot deny the application, but the members can issue recommendations to the county board.

Immediately after the Planning Commission meeting, the Board of Adjustment convened. All of the members of the Board of Adjustment also sit on the Planning Commission, though not all members of the Planning Commission sit on the Board of Adjustment.

The Board of Adjustment heard Bieniek’s request for a variance that would allow the tower to be constructed within 1,000 ft of a residential structure on a neighboring lot. Unlike the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment has the power to approve or deny an application for a variance, and in this case, it was denied.

What is next for the proposed tower

Though the variance has been denied, the application for the amended CUP will go before the county board on Feb. 24. The county commissioners will make the official decision on whether the project site can be changed at this time. If they vote down the amendment, that will mean that if Vertical Bridge moves forward with building the tower, they will need to do it in compliance with the WCA.

The law requires the avoidance of building in wetland areas first, but if avoidance is not feasible, it allows developers to build in ways that minimize the impacts, or to mitigate the damage by paying for “credits” through the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources wetland banking program. In 2024, the most recent data available, the cost per credit in the Lake Superior Bank Service Area was $57,413.82. It is unclear how many credits would be required for the tower project if the developers opt to pursue mitigation through wetland banking.

Through their discussions, the members of the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment made it clear that Vertical Bridge was free to propose other building sites on the property that met the 1,000 ft requirement and was in compliance with the WCA.

In documents filed for the Board of Commissioners’ consideration, Zoning Administrator Neva Maxwell wrote, “The findings stated that there was no established practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. In its decision, the Board prioritized balancing wetland impacts with reducing encroachment on neighboring residential properties and structures. The Board requested that the applicant bring forward a proposal that may involve greater wetland impacts but meets the required 1,000-foot setback from neighboring residential structures.”

Kirsten Wisniewski February 22, 2026