Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on December 5, 2018
Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Gerald Levasseur, Ken Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane and Dave Marhula. Members absent: Ed Arnesen. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund, Akiko Bragdon.
Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.
Approval of the Agenda:
M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt
Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 7, 2018
M/S/P Marhula/Head
Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
– None
Board of Adjustment – New Business
– Consideration of Variance Application #18-10V by Hooper Creek Investments, LLC: A tract of land in Government Lot 1, Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID #24.18.12.000. Applicant is requesting a Variance as required by Section 501.2.3 of the Lake of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to create a single non-conforming lot less than 5 acres in size without
platting within the shoreland area of the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an
Agricultural River segment.
Mio asked the representative from Hooper Creek Investments. LLC to come to the table and explain the request.
Mr. Ney explained that they would like to sell the house alone, without the rest of the property. Rainy River lot size, lot topography, current lot lines, and future development plans were discussed.
A neighboring property owner asked questions about the proposed project, wondering what exactly the plan for the property are.
Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the Findings of Facts.
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE
Name of Applicant: Hooper Creek Investments, LLC Date: December 5, 2018
Parcel #: 24.18.12.000 Variance Application #: 18-10V
A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon consideration of the following criteria:
1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Proposed lot size exceeds minimum lot requirement for a platted lot.
2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official control?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No Change
3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot is between two ravines and future development is proposed.
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot Size/Shape/Location
5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? It remains the same.
6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Proposed shape and layout
Condition(s): Tract B cannot be further Subdivided.
IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET.
Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.
APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( )
December 5, 2018
__________________________________
Date Tom Mio
Chair, Board of Adjustment
Motion made by McFarlane to approved the request with conditions.
Motion seconded by Head.
All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.
With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn of the Board of Adjustments. Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula, meeting adjourned. Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Commission – New Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-12CU by Stevan Helmstetter: The West 990’ of the NE¼NW¼, Section Thirty-one (31), Township One Hundred Sixty three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID# 14.31.21.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of
the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial business consisting of a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential District (R2).
Mio asked Mr. Helmstetter to come to the table and explain the request.
Mr. Helmstetter explained that he would like to rent out his home since he has since moved out of the area and does not want to sell the home yet.
Discussion ensured between the Commission and Mr. Helmstetter. Lot layout, structures and neighboring properties were discussed.
Mio asked the Board if they had further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the Findings of Facts.
Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision
Name of Applicant: _Stevan Helmstetter____________________________ Date: _12-5- 18________
Location/Legal Description: The West 990’ of the NE¼NW¼, Section Thirty-one (31), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID# 14.31.21.010____________
Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Rural Residential District (R2).
1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Still residential.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? No change.
3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? No change.
5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change.
9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change.
11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? See conditions.
13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?
YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Vegetation in place.
16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? No signage planned.
17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? On site.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows:
1) Check septic system to standards.
2) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) expires on sale of transfer of ownership.
3) Must meet Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) specs.
4) Collect and submit any lodging taxes to Lake of the Woods County.
The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:
Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( )
December 5, 2108
_____________________________________
Date Tom Mio
Chair, Planning Commission
This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.
Motion made by Head to approve the request with conditions.
Motion seconded by Marhula.
All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.
With no further items for consideration before the Planning Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn.
Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt, meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.
The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of the proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
Josh Stromlund