Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bluff‑impact‑denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies after‑the‑fact sauna in bluff impact zone at Cascade Beach Road
Summary
After public hearing and staff/DNR review, the Board denied a request to keep a 140‑sq‑ft sauna built within the bluff impact zone and slightly inside the Lake Superior shoreline setback; the DNR and staff said alternatives were feasible and practical difficulty was not demonstrated.
Cook County’s Board of Adjustment on March 12 denied an after‑the‑fact variance allowing a 140‑square‑foot sauna to remain within the bluff impact zone and 38 feet from the Lake Superior vegetation line at 4236 Cascade Beach Road.
Staff (Neva) reported the sauna was placed in 2023 on piers about 14 feet from the top of bluff (inside the bluff impact zone) and about 38 feet from the vegetation line where county rules require a 40‑foot shoreline setback and a 30‑foot top‑of‑bluff structure setback. The parcel is about 1.8 acres with roughly 352 feet of shoreline. Staff noted aerial imagery showing tree removal and an undermined bank at the bluff base and said alternative locations on the property could meet setbacks; Soil & Water advised shoreline restoration measures. The DNR recommended denial, citing lack of unique site circumstances, the visibility and stormwater/runoff implications of a structure inside the bluff impact zone, and that the primary reason for the variance appeared to be design preference.
Owners Carolyn and Kai Sockstrup said they used a cleared spot created by wind‑thrown trees and believed a contractor’s advice and the 140‑sq‑ft size threshold meant no permit was required. Carolyn said the family tries to avoid tree removal and did not intend to build in violation. She asked the board to consider that the sauna was built after wind damage cleared trees and that the structure is on piers and would be difficult to relocate without dismantling.
Board members who visited the site expressed concern about active bluff undermining and the potential for collapse; members said bluff impact zones exist because of these hazards and because vegetation is needed to slow erosion. Several members concluded the small size of the structure did not outweigh the fact it was constructed fully within the bluff setback and impact zone and that the application did not demonstrate a valid practical difficulty not created by the owners.
The board voted to deny the variance. Staff advised the owners that relocation of the accessory structure to a conforming location or removal would be necessary to comply with county rules, and Soil & Water resources were suggested for restoration and stabilization options.
