Crystal Lake Township Zoning Permit

^ Image: Article 26, Sec. 26.5.B applies to 'Antennas' as a permitted use—not 'Towers.' Antennas are receivers, while Towers are support structures that hold Antennas. Article 26 clearly distinguishes between the two. Sec. 26.5.B was misinterpreted during the APC Towers zoning permit review, resulting in an approved permit without requiring a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP). This error denied the CLT community due process and the opportunity for critical public input. ^

FACTS: What We Know for Sure about Crystal Lake Township Zoning Regs & the Bellows Park Cell Tower

(1)  Crystal Lake Township (CLT) Zoning Laws are publicly available on their website. (View CLT Zoning Regs Here)

(2) Bellows Park falls under CLT zoning jurisdiction and is classified as Lakeshore Residential District (R-1) under the Township’s zoning law, which limits development to “natural characteristics of the land” recognizing “the high scenic value and economic values of the lake shore properties” (Article V, Preamble). “Single Family Dwelling” is the only “Permitted Principal Use” in R-1 District (Sec. 5.1). In particular, the zoning ordinance specifically stipulates that “No building or structure shall be erected” to exceed “a maximum allowable height that is more than twenty-eight (28) feet.” (Sec. 5.4). 

(3) The maximum allowable height for buildings in the R-1 Lakeshore Residential District under Crystal Lake Township (CLT) zoning laws is 28 feet​ (CLT Zoning regs) 

(4)  Although Bellows Park is owned by the City of Frankfort, the land is outside Frankfort city limits, meaning Frankfort has no zoning authority over the parcel.

(5) Frankfort signed a lease with APC Towers to construct a 195' cell tower on Bellows Park. (View Lease)

(6)  Frankfort City Superintendent Josh Mills confirmed that, despite the signed lease, the tower could not be built without Crystal Lake Township zoning approval. (Record Patriot Article)

(7)  APC Towers applied for a CLT zoning permit on behalf of Verizon. The City of Frankfort did not apply for zoning approval—only APC Towers submitted the request. The lease states that Frankfort would assist as needed with zoning approvals. (View Permit Application)

(8)  APC Towers included a copy of the signed lease in its permit application. The lease was null and void if zoning approval was not granted. (View Lease)

(9)  Crystal Lake Township approved Zoning Permit #2024-ZP-40 for APC Towers (Verizon) on 10/26/2024. A copy of this permit was obtained via FOIA on 2/12/2024. (View Zoning Permit)

____________________

Bellows Park is zoned under CLT Zoning Regulations as "R-1 Lakeshore Residential District": 

The R-1 Lakeshore Residential District is defined in Crystal Lake Township Zoning Ordinance, Article V, with the following intent and regulations:

Intent and Purpose of the R-1 District

• The R-1 district is specifically intended to regulate land uses along the shores of lakes.

• It acknowledges the natural constraints on development, such as bluffs, swamps, and other environmental factor zoning recognizes the high scenic and economic value of lakefront properties and establishes development standards to balance reasonable use with environmental preservation.

 (Everything here is Our Analysis - Decide for Yourself)

____________

Summary Conclusion: The Zoning Administrator’s Errors Were Fatal

1. Misinterpreted Lease as a Done Deal → Lease was contingent on zoning approval.

2. Erroneous Claim of Exemption Under Section 3.28 → Commercial lease negated exemption, but APC Towers went through the zoning process, so was not exempt. If it were exempt, it would not have issued a Zoning Permit, but rather a letter of exemption. Article 3.28 is negated if the the puplic land is transferred for commercial use.

3. Misclassified the Tower as a Permitted Use → Conflated "antenna" with "tower." in Read Sec 26.5.B

4. Ignored Height Restrictions → 195' exceeded all limits without special land use approval in Article 26

5. Overruled R-1 Zoning Protections → Towers were not permitted in residential areas erroneously overruled Article 26, Article 5

6. Failed to Follow Special Land Use Procedures → No hearing, public notice, or appeals process. Article 26

Had the correct process been followed, APC Towers' permit should have been denied or required a full special land use review.

Read the CLT Zoning Administrator's response and his reasoning in response to this Analysis. 

____________

(1) The Tower was not a "Done-Deal" When Presented to CLT Zoning Administrator

• (a) Lease was not a Conditional Upon Zoning Permit

  • The lease agreement between APC Towers and the City of Frankfort was explicitly conditional upon receiving a zoning permit. If the permit was denied, the lease would be null and void​L.

  • CLT Zoning Administrator erroneously conflated the existence of a signed lease with an entitlement to proceed with construction.

• (b) APC Towers Submitted a Zoning Permit Application

  • The application was not a mere formality; it required the CLT ZA’s interpretation of Article 26 before APC Towers could move forward​.

• (c) APC Towers' Request for Article 26 Interpretation

  • APC Towers' letter specifically requested a zoning determination before proceeding, further confirming that the tower was not pre-approved​.

(2) CLT Zoning Administrator Erroneously Determined APC Towers Was Exempt from CLT Zoning Laws (Section 3.28) (Moot because because even if exempt, which we have STRONG evident and case law to support that the commercial use transfer would have negated this exemption, if it existed.  

• (a) CLT May Have Relied on Faulty Legal Advice

  • Section 3.28 exempts government-owned lands from zoning laws, but the exemption does not apply to when government owned lands are transferred for commercial leases

• (b) Commercial Lease Exception

  • The exemption in Section 3.28 does not apply when government-owned land is transferred for commercial use. Although the CLT zoning reg do not define "transferred," there is strong case law to support that in zoning law, a lease of the APC Towers nature would be considered a transferred a functional transfer for commercial lease. ​

• (c) CLT ZA Received Legal Advice that Interpreted Sec 3.28 to include the word "ownership: - meaning "transfer of ownership", when Sec 3.28 clearly states only the word "transferred' - which under zoning law, this lease would be considered a transfer of ownership for commercial use. In this lease, Frankfort effectively ceded full control of the land to APC Towers, a commercial entity, for nearly five decades. 

  • The advice ignored the commercial transfer provision, leading to an incorrect conclusion of exemption​

• (d) Commercial Transfer Was Misinterpreted

  • The exemption applies only to government uses (Sec 3.28), not when leased for private commercial purposes​

(3) FACT: Any Interpretation of Section 3.28 Exemption Was MOOT in APC Towers' Permit Application

• (a) FACT: CLT Zoning Attorney Conceded That APC Towers Submitted a Zoning Application (link coming)

  • Even if CLT initially believed in an exemption, APC Towers chose to go through the zoning process, which means CLT treated it as subject to zoning laws​ and it did not claim that APC Towers was exempt.

• (b) CLT Attorney Advised Keeping Section 3.28 Interpretation Private (Link coming)

  • This suggests CLT knew the exemption argument was weak but did not want to risk losing control over the zoning process​_zoning_ord_-current_20….

• (c) A Zoning Permit Was Issued (#2024-ZP-40)

  • If CLT truly believed that APC Towers was exempt, it should not have issued a zoning permit at all, but rather a letter of exemption​ stating that APC Towers was exempt 

• (d) If CLT had Determined that APC Towers was Exempt, A Proper Zoning Determination Would Have Resulted in a Letter of Exemption (if Valid) - Not a Permit

  • CLT should have issued a letter of exemption, not a permit, if it truly believed Section 3.28 applied​

• (e) CLT Applied Article 24 Crystal Lake Watershed Regulations to APC Towers

  • This contradicts the claim that APC Towers was exempt from zoning laws​. 

• (f) FACT: Order Matters

  • If CLT ZA determined that Section 3.28 exemption applied, it would not have proceeded with the zoning permit process​, and yet CLT ZA went through the zoning process with APC Towers and Issued a Zoning Permit

  • CLT ZA cannot partially apply zoning laws—either APC Towers was subject to them or it was not​

(4) CLT ZA Erroneously Applied Article 26 to APC Towers

• (a) CLT ZA Incorrectly Determined That the Tower Was a "Permitted Use" Under Section 25.5.B

  • Misinterpretation: Section 26.5.B only applies to antennas on public property, not towers​

  • The zoning administrator conflated "antenna" with "tower", incorrectly approving the 195' tower as a permitted use​ (This is a critical error - read Sec 26.5.B for yourself. Once the CLT ZA erroneously determined that APC Towers was a "Permitted Use" -- the rest of the errors ensued) (Here is CLT ZA's Reasoning as to why APC Tower was a Permitted Use under Sec 26.5 - where he continues to justify conflating "Antenna" with "Tower") (This is the exact question that APC Towers asked for interpretation of in its Zoning Application.)

• (b) Article 26 Definitions Clearly Distinguish Between Antennas and Towers

  • Antenna: Is a receiving device. Defined as a device mounted on a structure​

  • Tower: Is a mounting structure. Defined as a freestanding structure built primarily for supporting antennas​

  • The CLT ZA ignored these clear distinctions, wrongly classifying the tower as a permitted use under the antenna 

  • We want to emphasize that the total height of the structure is 199 feet, consisting of a 195-foot "Tower" with an additional 4 feet of "Antenna." The magnitude of the error in interchanging the defined terms in Section 26.2 becomes evident when comparing these height differences: a 195-foot "Tower" versus a 4-foot "Antenna" in APC Towers' application.

  • Under Section 26.5.B, only "Antennas" are permitted, making this misclassification a critical zoning error.

• (c) Article 26 Height Restrictions Were Ignored

  • Maximum allowable height in non-commercial zones:

    • 90 feet for a single user

    • 120 feet for two users

    • 150 feet for three or more users​

  • The proposed 195' tower exceeded the limits and required a special land use permit, which was not obtained​

• (d) APC Towers Needed a Special Land Use Permit

  • Towers are not automatically permitted under Section 26.5 and instead require a special land use permit if not in commercial or industrial zones​_zoning

• (e) R-1 Residential Zoning Prohibits Towers

  • The only permitted principal use in R-1 zoning is single-family dwellings​

  • Towers are not listed as an approved use in the R-1 district​

  • CLT ZA overruled R-1 zoning by approving the tower without proper justification​

• (f) Setback and Separation Distance Violations

  • Article 26 mandates that towers must be set back at least their height from adjoining lot lines​

  • The 195’ tower was not properly set back, violating zoning regulations​_zoning

  • Towers must be at least 200 feet or 300% of their height from residential properties​.

(5) After Erroneously Determining Permitted Use, Additional Errors Compounded

• (a) The CLT ZA Did Not Require APC Towers to Meet the Special Land Use Permit Requirements

  • The permit should have been denied unless a special land use application was formally submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission​

• (b) Public Notice and Hearing Requirements Were Skipped

  • A tower of this height requires notification to property owners within 300 feet, which did not occur

• (c) Zoning Board of Appeals Review that would have been of the SLUP Was Not Conducted

  • Any interpretation of zoning should have gone through the Zoning Board of Appeals, but the ZA acted unilaterally