Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Zone Change topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission approves RU‑10 zone change for 163‑acre glamping proposal after contentious public hearing

Kane County Commission · August 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Following a public hearing with neighbors raising dust, traffic and wildfire concerns, the Kane County Commission approved ordinance 2025‑24 to rezone two parcels (total 163 acres) from Agricultural to RU‑10 for a proposed 20–25‑site glamping project; applicants offered voluntary deed restrictions and will next pursue a conditional use permit with specific mitigation measures.

The Kane County Commission voted on Aug. 26 to approve an ordinance (2025‑24) rezoning two parcels totaling about 163 acres from Agricultural to Rural‑10 (RU‑10) to allow a low‑density glamping proposal. The vote followed staff presentations, an applicant presentation, public comment from neighbors and extended commissioner discussion about access, wildfire risk, traffic and use restrictions.

Applicants Nate and Deanna Lee described plans for two clustered glamping areas totaling about 20–25 sites (they said roughly 5 acres of the parcel is buildable), limited parking and one full‑time on‑site caretaker with Starlink internet for emergency communications. They said the project would preserve roughly 150 acres of the property, remove deadfall for fire mitigation, provide ADA‑accessible units and rely on two existing water rights. The Lees said they would not allow individual guest fire pits, RVs, ATVs, or other off‑road rentals on the site.

Neighbors at the public hearing raised health and safety concerns, citing dust on single‑lane dirt roads, potential increases in vehicle trips (one commenter estimated up to 5,000 additional vehicle trips a year), limited road width and overhead clearance for emergency vehicles, and human‑caused wildfire risk. Commissioners asked detailed questions about road improvements, whether deed restrictions could limit future uses, and how conditional‑use permitting would address fire mitigation and access. Staff (Shannon) explained that deed restrictions are voluntary and that the county could condition later approvals through the conditional‑use process, which includes engineering and slope review.

The applicant offered to record a voluntary deed restriction limiting the number of units (they proposed caps such as 30 units or no more than 10% of the property), and indicated willingness to work with county staff on specific conditions. The commission noted that a zone change allows the property to be developed in ways allowed by the RU‑10 zone and that future CUP and building stages will test compliance with slope, road and fire‑safety requirements.

Outcome: The commission approved ordinance 2025‑24 to rezone the parcels to RU‑10 and directed staff and the applicants to proceed with the conditional‑use permit process and additional mitigation work. Recorded roll‑call checks in the transcript showed named commissioners casting votes during the process; the transcript records the motion and roll calls but does not list a complete printed tally of every commissioner in a single table in the transcript. No CUP was granted at the hearing; the zone change is the first of several procedural steps.