How was a 195-foot cell tower permitted on beloved public parkland on the watershed shoreline of Crystal Lake without any public input or public hearing?. Stay tuned as we continue uncovering the facts. More details to come.
This website exists because the public did not learn about this tower through a clear public zoning process. People learned because heavy construction activity in Bellows Park on Crystal shoreline became impossible to miss. By then, Crystal Lake Township had already issued a zoning permit behind closed doors, even though residents reasonably expected that a tower of this size in a residential lakeshore setting would require public notice and a public hearing.
What followed was confusion. The public was repeatedly told that Crystal Lake Township could not have done anything because the property was “exempt” from township zoning. But that was not the full story. In fact, Crystal Lake Township had already taken zoning action by issuing APC Towers from North Carolina on behalf of Verizon Wireless a zoning permit — something the public only later uncovered through FOIA and the record itself. At the same time, city officials said the tower met Crystal Lake Township zoning requirements, while township officials said the project was exempt from Crystal Lake Township zoning. Those two positions cannot both be true.
Crystal Lake Township’s own website acknowledged that “since tower construction started last month, there has been a groundswell of opposition to its location.” And still insiting that they could have taken no action regarind the tower, they directed the pubic to talk with Frankfot and news organization. That is exactly the point. The public reaction came when construction started, not when any meaningful public notice of township zoning action was given.
Now, in court, citizens are being told they were too late. But the public cannot be expected to appeal a zoning action it was never clearly told had occurred.
Some nearby members of the public only learned of the 195-feet tower being erected on Bellows Park without any public hearings, community input, or consideration of the park’s R-1 residential lakeshore designation. The truth is, we don’t know—because there is so little public information available. The only records we’ve found are a few vague line items in meeting agendas.
Tower is 195 feet + Antennas are 4 feet = 199 feet total
(Not to mention the Tower is on Bellows Park ridgeline elevation, adding much more height.)
CLT ZA -- CLT ZA, Tom Zucera, doubled-down at the 2/19/2025 council meeting informing the public that 'Towers" is interchangeable with "Antennas" in CLT zoning regs under his analysis. Tom Zucera continues to insist a 195-foot tower is the same as a 4-foot antenna under the CLT ordiance.
The first pubic meeting that CLT held with the cell tower on the agenda was 2/19/2025. At this meeting, CLT Zoning Administrator continued to insist that CLT zoning laws say that cell towers and antennas are interchangeable terms under the Township's zoning laws and that cell towrs are a "permitted use" under Article 26, Sec 26.5.
The City of Frankfort:
Frankfort handed over parkland to a commercial client.
Update 2/22/95: It's tarting to come together. The APC Towers lease with Frankfort specifically states that the City of Frankfort will specifically assist its Lessee (APC Towers) "at no additional compensation" for assistance with zoning approvals. (Lease)
We wondered why that language was specifically written into the lease. Turns out that Josh Mills, as both Superintendent of Frankfort and Lake Township Zoning Administrator, is a zoning "Exper." We believe that he thought he found an airtight loophole in CLT zoning ordinances that would permit this 195-foot new cell tower build on the protected lakeshore lots on land donated to the City. -- More on this to come, but the story is starting to make sense as it comes together.
(More to come here since they delayed their Frankfort FOIA Response based on massive volume of material, they claim.)
Crystal Lake Township: A Fatal Error in Applying its Zoning Regulations
With something a simple as conflating the defined regulation's terms "Antenna" and 'Tower" to be interchangeable, the CLT ZA (who doubled-down that these terms are interchangeable at CLT's Board Meeting on 2/20/25) allowed all R-1 Lakeshore Zoning Protections and Due Process procedures to be overridden in its permitting of the APC Towers Zoning Application for the 195' New Cell Tower on Crystal Lake in Bellows Park.
Crystal Lake Township -- if you are striving for a "better way to communicate" on such matters-- we can start with allowing Due Process and the required public hearing that is owed under CLT Zoning regulations, if they had been correctly applied to APC Tower's Permit Application.
______
Fatal Error in CLT Zoning Application: Misinterpreting Section 26.5.B to Override R-1 Lakeshore Protections
Crystal Lake Township’s (CLT) Zoning Administrator (ZA) made a critical and fundamentally flawed interpretation of Section 26.5.B of the zoning ordinance, which resulted in the approval of a 195-foot tower on Crystal Lake’s shoreline—directly overriding the township’s own zoning protections for R-1 Lakeshore Residential properties.
The Core Issue: Conflating "Antenna" with "Tower"
Section 26.5.B of CLT's Zoning Ordinance designates Antennas as a permitted use on public property if authorized by lease or license. However, the ordinance explicitly defines Antenna and Tower as separate and distinct structures under Section 26.2:
Antenna: A device for receiving or transmitting signals.
Tower: A supporting structure for antennas, subject to zoning height limits and additional review.
The fatal mistake occurred when the ZA misclassified a 195-foot Tower as an "Antenna", incorrectly treating it as a permitted use without requiring a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) or height variance, as mandated for Towers under Section 26.7.
Further Compounding the Error: Height Limit Violation
Even under the ZA’s flawed interpretation, the CLT zoning ordinance caps Towers at 150 feet. This should have automatically triggered a special permit review, even if the structure had been improperly classified as an Antenna. However, CLT failed to enforce this requirement, allowing the 195-foot Tower to bypass critical zoning protections entirely.
CLT Board Meeting (2/19/25): Doubling Down on the Misinterpretation
At the February 19, 2025 CLT Board meeting, rather than acknowledging the error, the ZA reaffirmed the mistaken claim that the defined term "Antenna" is interchangeable with "Tower" under Article 26—an assertion that directly contradicts the clear definitions in the zoning ordinance. This continued misinterpretation sets a dangerous precedent that effectively nullifies the township’s ability to regulate future tower developments in protected residential zones.
Conclusion: A Decision That Must Be Corrected
This misinterpretation erodes the integrity of CLT’s zoning protections, sidesteps established land use review processes, and opens the door for unrestricted tower construction in residential zones. The 195-foot Tower approval must be reconsidered under the correct legal framework—ensuring that CLT zoning laws are applied as written to protect the community and Crystal Lake’s shoreline from further unchecked development.
Call to the City of Frankfort (2/12/25)--Who's Responsible for the 195-foot tower on Crystal Lake in Bellows Park?
What prompted our FOIA Request to the City of Frankfort? On February 12, 2025, we called the City of Frankfort and asked to speak with Superintendent Josh Mills to better understand how the city decided to lease Bellows Park to APC Towers/Verizon. Specifically, we wanted to know what deliberations took place before signing a lease that turned public lakeshore parkland into an industrial site—since very little exists in the public record about how this decision was made.
The city’s response? A very polite woman answered and told us, hold, that Josh Mills was unavailable, but instead of offering any insight, she redirected us to Crystal Lake Township (CLT), saying they had the information and even offered to provide CLT’s phone number.
🚨 But here’s the problem: The City of Frankfort signed the lease—so why are they deflecting questions instead of providing answers? Shouldn’t they be able to explain their own decision?
The City of Frankfort blaming CLT for approving the zoning permit is like handing someone the keys to your car, watching them drive off, and then acting shocked when they take it on the highway.
Our point of view: "The City of Frankfort’s position seems to be that this is all Crystal Lake Township’s fault because they approved the zoning permit. But let’s be real—you signed the lease. You knew that getting zoning approval for this parcel would effectively transform it from parkland to industrial use (if COF's own zoning principles had applied). That should have raised red flags, yet you went forward with it. You can’t just wash your hands of responsibility now. If someone calls you and asks about what’s happening, you should be providing clear answers, not passing the buck."
Email to City of Frankfort and CLT Asking for a Temporary Pause Based on Public's Lack of Information on How a 195-foot Tower on Crystal Lake in Bellows Park Came To Be. The email sent is below
Date 2/14/2025
To: Crystal Lake Township Superintendent Ferris; Crystal Lake Township Zoning Administrator Kucera; Crystal Lake Township Officials; City of Frankfort Superintendent Mills; Mayor Holwerda; and City of Frankfort City Council
Urgent Request to Temporarily Pause Cell Tower Construction on Bellows Park
We write as an affected property owner on behalf of myself, my family, and many in the community with this urgent request to please pause (at least for two weeks) the construction of the new 195’ cell tower on Bellows Park. This land, located in the middle of a residential neighborhood, was given by the Bellows family to the City of Frankfort to be used for the community’s enjoyment as "Bellows Park."
It is my understanding that this is not the first request you have received to direct APC to pause construction, meaning you are already aware that you are proceeding at risk. We want to add the following justifications for your consideration to temporarily pause construction—if you have not already—before moving forward with this project.
Upcoming Meetings Next Week
A temporary pause would allow community in town who know about the issues to attend both the City of Frankfort (COF) and Crystal Lake Township (CLT) council meetings scheduled for this coming week in Frankfort:
· COF’s meeting: Tuesday, 2/18, at 5 PM at City Hall
· CLT’s meeting: Wednesday, 2/19, in Frankfort (public opposition to the tower is specifically on the agenda, per the CLT website)
To add to public confusion as residents try to gain an understanding of how a 195’ new cell tower came to be approved on R-1 residential land, both COF and CLT deny having control over the tower’s construction.
· When calling COF, they direct inquiries to CLT, stating that the tower was approved under CLT’s zoning laws.
· CLT, in turn, says they had no say in the tower’s approval and claim they "expressed concerns that we have little or no say in these and other decisions made by other entities." CLT further states that they have "reached out to the City of Frankfort on our residents’ behalf." (crystallaketwp.org).
Despite CLT’s claims that its hands were tied, and APC Towers was exempt from CLT zoning laws, the simple fact remains APC Towers received a zoning permit from CLT, which expires in one year (see attached CLT Zoning Permit obtained via FOIA 2/12/25).
Since each party is directing accountability toward the other, this further justifies a temporary construction pause while the public tries to understand how this decision was made with no public input. There are no clear public records explaining these discrepancies, and the community deserves answers given the significant impact of the tower.
Part of the confusion stems from the parcel’s unique location:
· It is owned by COF, but it is entirely outside Frankfort city limits, meaning COF has no zoning jurisdiction over it. If the COF had applied its own zoning laws, it would be difficult to see how this tower could have ever been approved, as Frankfort’s zoning rules only allow such massive structures on Industrial zoned land.
· The parcel donated to COF falls directly within CLT’s zoning jurisdiction. It’s located in the middle of CLT, surrounded by Township land, in an area zoned R-1 residential. If Crystal Lake Township Zoning laws were applied to the tower application, there seems very little chance the new 195' cell tower could be approved on this R-1 residential land. next to a children's playground, community gathering areas, and 7th Street Public Beach, at least not without a public hearing.
· The exact placement of the tower in Bellows Park is also significant because it’s being built on the highest hill in the Park, so it will effectually loom much taller than 195’ in the skyline if you are standing yards away on the shoreline. This will blight the Crystal Lake skyline for everyone around the lake.
Crystal Lake Township was the only party in the negotiations that took the position that the parcel was exempt from CLT zoning regulations, based on records available to date. The documentation available shows that both APC Towers/Verizon and the City of Frankfort acted as if they were subject to CLT zoning approval; APC Towers went through the zoning
application and approval process with CLT Zoning Administrator, ultimately obtaining the CLT Zoning Permit for the tower, Valid until next October (CLT Zoning Permit Attached, obtained via FOIA 2/14/25).
There appears to be a general misunderstanding concerning APC’s need to receive a permit from the Crystal Lake Township. We would contend, and we believe the actions of the APC would substantiate, that they, in fact, did need to get a permit from the Township and made an attempt to do so. Our primary contention is that when the City, as the owner of the parcel, transferred a leasehold interest to APC, the requirement that they follow all appropriate Crystal Lake Township guidelines for obtaining that permit be followed. That has not been done. Simply put, it would appear that these crucial zoning permit guidelines may have been misunderstood by both the CLT and the City of Frankfort.
This general misunderstanding by the CLT as to the requirements that APC would need in order to construct their tower have not been met. The discussion below outlines this deficiency and supports the request for correction.
The City of Frankfort communications and public reports available all indicate that the COF thought the tower was not exempt, but rather that it was wholly subject to CLT zoning regulations. COF documentation available consistently points to their belief that the tower could not be built unless it was approved by CLT zoning.
News of COF’s lease with Verizon was first announced in a Record Patriot news article with an interview from the COF Superintendent Josh Mills:
"The City of Frankfort has a lease agreement with American Tower to construct a communications tower for Verizon on city property. However, the tower must first be approved by Crystal Lake Township zoning officials." (Emphasis added, Record Patriot, Frankfort Leases Land to Verizon, 10/17/2024)
Furthermore, in correspondence from COF Superintendent to CLT dated January 27, 2025, Josh Mills writes that: "We have email documentation that . . . Tower Consultants ... on behalf of APC Tower, communicated with the Crystal Lake Township Zoning
Administrator ... that they would be seeking zoning approval. Mr. Low shared the string of emails with me, because he knew that the City wanted to make sure the zoning ordinance requirements were met." (COF Superintendent Letter, Attached)
The Mayor of Frankfort similarly writes in January 27, 2025: "The tower company was told by the Crystal Lake Township Zoning Administrator that the City of Frankfort has jurisdiction over the park. It took some time to work through ... discussions and approvals were conducted ... In all of the attachments you will find the correspondence from the tower company and your Zoning Administrator, as well as any communications from the City's Superintendent." (COF Mayor Letter, Attached)
As an aside, it is an incorrect statement that the City of Frankfort had jurisdiction over the land parcel; it is located outside of their city limits and wholly within Crystal Lake Township’s jurisdiction. Additionally, when the COF transferred (lease) an interest in that parcel to a commercial entity for a commercial purpose, not municipal or park related, the jurisdiction immediately transferred to CLT requiring all restrictions concerning the tower construction to be met before a permit could issue. This, perhaps mistakenly, was never done in complete violation of the CLT zoning ordinance.
·APC Towers Determination of CLT Zoning Law Applicability: Applies
Available documentation shows tower consultants for APC Towers approached the CLT Zoning Administrator asking for his interpretation of specific CLT zoning ordinances. APC Tower went through the zoning application process and filed the necessary paperwork for approval. In correspondence with the CLT Zoning Administrator, the APC Towers consultants asked about compliance and correct interpretations of specific CLT zoning provisions and whether their interpretations were correct.
APC Towers wrote to CLT Zoning Administrator in July 2024 asking:
"Crystal Lake Township ordinance Section 26.5.B seems to indicates the
proposed location would be a Permitted Use as it is located on public property and a lease has been completed authorizing the installation. Could you please confirm the ordinance is correctly interpreted in this case and the installation of the facility can proceed without formal approval as stated in Section 26.5.A." (Tower Consultants Letter to CLT ZA, 7/2024, Attached)
These questions posed by APC Towers to CLT Zoning are not the type of questions asked by a party that believes they are exempt from zoning regulations.
APC Towers completed a formal CLT Zoning application and went through the CLT zoning approval process the the CLT Zoning Administrator. The APC Towers zoning application to CLT to build a 195’ new cell tower on land zoned R-1 was approved and granted with CLT Zoning Permit #2024-ZP-40. (CLT Permit Attached, obtained via FOIA, 2/12/2025).
CLT is the only party that has stated after the fact that APC Towers was exempt from CLT zoning laws. We say “after the fact” because APC Towers went through the zoning approval process with CLT and obtained a permit.
The CLT Zoning Office has consistently maintained that it had no authority to stop or regulate the construction of a 195-foot cell tower at Bellows Park because APC Towers presented them with a so-called "done deal." In a recent Record Patriot article addressing the groundswell of opposition to the 195’ tower on the Park, the CLT Zoning Administrator stated:
"We were contacted by the tower company and they informed us a lease had been signed and they wanted to get started building," Kucera said. "We worked with them on a few things like erosion control measures and tree removal. They were very cooperative. It was a done deal; all we could do was ask them to modify a few things to have less impact." (Record Patriot, Frankfort residents concerned about new cell tower, Jan 22, 2025)
As shown above, CLT’s position is based partially on the claim that the commercial tower company had already secured a signed lease. However, this reasoning reflects a fundamental legal misunderstanding: a signed lease does not equate to an automatic approval for construction or a “done-deal”. The lease explicitly states that the tower's construction was entirely contingent upon obtaining the necessary zoning permits. If CLT zoning approval was not granted, the lease itself would become null and void. [APC Towers Lease, copy provided APC Towers to CLT in its zoning application]
CLT’s position that it had no authority was also based on the conclusion that APC Towers was exempt from CLT zoning laws. This belief appears that it may have been based on legal advice given to the CLT Zoning Administrator with its attorney. The attorney advised CLT ZA to keep his determination that APC Towers may be exempt private because, “I wouldn't advise the applicant of the above because if they are willing to submit for review, then we would rather have that opportunity. In other words, I think they could take the position that they are exempt so they don't even have to submit to you.” (CLT ZA Letter obtained via FOIA, 2/12/25)
Thus, the records available show that only CLT behaved as if APC Towers was exempt from CLT zoning laws during the tower permitting process. The actions of both APC Towers and the City of Frankfort show they did not behave as if they were exempt from CLT zoning laws
and went through the zoning application process and did everything required by CLT ZA to comply and obtain a CLT zoning permit.
This advice may explain why the CLT ZA, despite repeated public statements that he could do nothing because APC Towers was exempt, still went through the zoning application process with APC Towers and partially applied zoning law (a watershed section) and then issued a zoning permit. The CLT approved APC Towers zoning permit to build the 195’ new cell tower in R-1 zoning is valid for one year. (CLT Zoning Permit attached, via FOIA 2/12/25.)
To reiterate, from available documentation at this time, it appears that CLT only thought privately that the tower was exempt from its zoning laws. APC Towers tower consultants explicitly sought zoning approval from the CLT ZA regarding compliance with the specific zoning ordinance before proceeding. This alone demonstrates that even the developers understood that zoning approval was a necessary hurdle—not a mere formality. The proposed site for the tower is designated as R-1 Residential, a classification that does not inherently permit such a structure without proper zoning authorization. The reality is clear: the 195’ cell tower at Bellows Park could not have moved forward without CLT Zoning’s explicit approval.
Therefore, CLT Zoning’s claim that it had no control over the process is both inaccurate and misleading.
The Public Was Not Informed in Any Meaningful Way
Neither COF nor CLT held public hearings to notify residents about this tower. We are not arguing in this letter whether such hearings were legally required, but the fact remains that there is a significant lack of public awareness as a result. This is well-documented by the numerous calls the COF and CLT offices have received and the growing public outcry as residents learn of this project. CLT acknowledges the opposition on its website, which states: “Since tower construction started last month, there has been a ground swell of opposition to its location. Although we are fielding many questions and concerns on the topic, we strongly advise you to communicate with other sources of information, as well, such as the officials at Frankfort, the Record-Patriot, UpNorth Live, the internet and the neighbors, all of which are involved with executing, reporting on and/or re-examining the situation.” (crystallaketwp.org)
COF made the decision not to hold a public hearing about the tower despite enacting a major land-use change—transforming beloved parkland from residential-recreational to commercial-industrial use. Even COF Superintendent Josh Mills admitted to the Record Patriot on January 22nd that a public hearing was likely warranted in hindsight in an article
titled: Frankfort residents concerned about new cell tower. However, the City justifies its actions by claiming that because the lease was approved during a city council meeting open to the public, they fulfilled all required public notice obligations. This is even though the vague agenda item and lack of clear disclosure effectively prevented any meaningful public discussion on this massive tower.
Likewise, CLT chose not to hold a public hearing, declaring that the tower was a "done deal" when it came to them and that they had no say in its approval, directing public concerns back to the COF.
Regardless of how it came to be that neither COF nor CLT held public hearings, the fact remains that the public needs time to become informed—which justifies a temporary pause in construction. There are no publicly available records indicating that an in-depth discussion occurred about alternate site analysis, health implications of placing the tower on parkland where families and children gather, or the impact on home values for residents who will now lose their lake views. Many homeowners are away for the winter and are about to return to find a massive tower in their backyard. A temporary construction pause of at least two weeks seems like a small request to allow more residents the opportunity to learn about and weigh in on this decision.
Neither the COF nor CLT sought public input on this major decision that significantly affects both communities. A pause is well-advised.
A temporary pause would allow the community time to ensure that all potential concerns are addressed, including:
· Health Concerns: Residents plan to present their concerns at the CLT meeting on 2/19/25.
· Property Values: Studies show that proximity to cell towers negatively impacts home values, not to mention the destruction of lake views.
· Environmental & Aesthetic Damage: The tower will permanently damage the character of Bellows Park and blight the Crystal Lake shoreline.
While your response to this request may be that our “hands are tied” and there is no way to undo what has been done, you certainly are in a position to correct this error by immediately taking a position that the permit issued to APC Towers was invalid and void, as it violated the zoning ordinance due to a misunderstanding or misreading of the rights and
responsibilities of the Township. Correspondence directing a revocation of that permit would allow APC to go through the appropriate zoning variance permitting requirements in order to construct their tower. This can and should be done, and it is certainly an action within your control. We are requesting that at the meeting scheduled on February 19, 2025, the Township takes up this question and approves the attached letter or correspondence similar thereto as a statement of its position.
Taking such a position is in the best interest of the community, given the manner in which this permit was issued, which was contrary to law, lacking full transparency and accountability and providing zero public input before the initial decision was made. This is not an irreversible situation and should be addressed immediately.
In the interests of all parties involved, this requested pause in construction until the appropriate permitting process can be followed makes eminent sense, and while legal action is not contemplated, it is quite possible that writs of Mandamus or Superintending Control could be filed with the court to compel action where there is not a voluntary agreement reached to do right by the citizens of the CLT. Legal action is costly, and proceedings involving the Township, City, or APC are not desired.
We would appreciate your thoughtful consideration given to this reasonable request.
Yours Sincerely,