LAND & WATER
April 7, 2021
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on April 7, 2021
Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula and Wes Johnson. The following members were absent: Reed McFarlane and Marshall Nelson. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.
Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.
Approval of the Agenda:
Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt
Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 3, 2021 – M/S/P Horntvedt/Head
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None
Board of Adjustment – New Business
– Consideration of Variance #21-02V by Terry Brateng: Lots 4 & 5, Block 1, Subdivision of Outlot A of Riverside Plat, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.51.01.040. Applicant is requesting a Variance as required by Section 501.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to create a lot less than the minimum one (1) acre lot size for a non-shoreland property located in a Residential Zoning District (R1).
Mr. Mio asked Mr. Brateng to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Brateng explained that he has a river lot and then recently purchased this backlot. His request is to retain a portion of the lot for a future storage shed and then sell the other portion to his brother and sister in law. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Brateng ensued. They discussed future develop plans of the lots, setback requirements, and adjoining the back lot with the river lot.
With no further discussion from the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any objections.
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE Name of Applicant: Terry Brateng Date: April 7, 2021
Parcel #: 24.51.01.040 Variance Application #: 21-02V 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? Residential.
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/residential.
3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot boundaries/original plat.
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot boundaries.
5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change.
6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Original plat.
Condition(s): River lot (Lot 13, Block 1, Riverside Plat) and Lot #4 (Lot 4, Block 1, Subdivision of Outlot A of Riverside Plat) to be forever attached as one parcel.
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 ( ) Motion to Approve with Condition: M/S/P Marhula/Head. All in favor, none opposed.
– Consideration of Variance #21-03V by Michael Klein: Part of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Wheeler’s Point, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 19.52.01.040. Applicant is requesting a Variance as required by Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition less than the required ten (10) foot property line and the seventy five (75) foot Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) setbacks within the shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development lake.
Mr. Mio asked Mr. Klein to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Klein explained that he would like to add a small addition to the existing structure to accommodate a full bath, utility room, washer/dryer, closet and storage. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Klein ensued. They discussed the age of the current structure, proximity to the lot line as per the survey, and the Wheeler’s Point Sanitary District.
With no further discussion from the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any objections.
Name of Applicant: Michael Klein Date: April 7, 2021
Parcel #: 19.52.01.040 Variance Application #: 21-03VLake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE
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? Residential.
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 size and position of structure.
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Previous owners and plat.
5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change.
6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and position of structures.
Condition(s): None
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 ( )
Motion to Approve As Presented: M/S/P Johnson/Marhula. All in favor, none opposed.
With no further business in front of the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio entertained a motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting.
Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head. All in favor, none opposed.
Mr. Mio entertained a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting.
Motion to open the Planning Commission meeting: M/S/P Head/Marhula. All in favor, none opposed.
Planning Commission – New Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-04CU by Devlin Reasy: Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Turgeon Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 24.60.01.040. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purposes of controlling erosion and sedimentation. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment.
Mr. Mio asked Mr. Reasy to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Reasy explained that he would like revitalize an existing access to the Rainy, address bank erosion and behind the house address some erosion with fabric and rock in the ravine. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Reasy ensued. They discussed proper erosion control and seeding the exposed soil immediately.
With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any objections.
Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact and Decision
Name of Applicant: Devlin Reasy Date: April 7, 2021
Location/Legal Description: Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Turgeon Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 24.60.01.040.
Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of controlling erosion and sedimentation.
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? Control erosion.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Erosion control.
4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Will not adversely affect these.
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Reason for project.
7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?
YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Reason for project.
10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
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? ______________________________________________________
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ The specific conditions of approval are as follows: None
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 (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve As Presented: M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula. All in favor, none opposed.
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-05CU by Knife River on behalf of The Welberg Family Trust: The SW¼NE ¼; SE¼NW¼; NE¼SW¼; NW¼SE¼; Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.36.13.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion and continue the extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining and washing and hot mix asphalt plant in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).
Mr. Mio asked the representative from Knife River to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Basgaard represented Knife River and provided a brief history of the project area as well as detailing the future expansion to the current project areas. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Basgaard ensued. They discussed noise, dust control, hours of operation, truck routes, permit requirements from MPCA, reclamation, quantity of aggregate, existing berms, and proposed berm locations from the overburden of the proposed expansion site.
Mio asked if anyone in the audience would like to say anything regarding the request.
Jonathan McHaney, lives to the east of the pit, brought up truck traffic routes and screening between the residences and pit. Through this discussion, the requested area doesn’t involve the area where Mr. McHaney was talking about. There are two property owners and Mr. McHaney was talking about the pit owned by the other landowner.
With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of Facts.
Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact and Decision
Name of Applicant: Knife River on behalf of The Welberg Family Trust Date: April 7, 2021
Location/Legal Description: The SW¼NE ¼; SE¼NW¼; NE¼SW¼; NW¼SE¼; Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.36.13.000.
Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion and continue the extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining and washing and hot mix asphalt plant in a Rural Residential Zoning 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? Existing aggregate mining.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Aggregate mining proposal.
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? No change.
7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Same access as before expansion.
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
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? ______________________________________________________
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 10-year CUP – Must meet all MPCA requirements.
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 ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Head. All in favor, none opposed.
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-06CU by Knife River on behalf of Michael Gamache: The SW¼NW ¼, Section Three (3), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 23.03.23.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive use of the property consisting of aggregate mining in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).
Mr. Mio asked Mr. Basgaard to explain the request. Mr. Basgaard provided a brief history of the project area as well as detailing the current requested project areas. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Basgaard ensued. They discussed noise, dust control, hours of operation, truck routes, permit requirements from MPCA, reclamation, quantity of aggregate, existing berms, and proposed berm locations from the overburden of the proposed expansion site.
Mio asked if anyone in the audience would like to say anything regarding the request.
Brian Labore, landowner to the west, inquired as to the noise, hours of operation, traffic noise and congestion, and if a crusher will be present.
Mr. Marhula and Mr. Stromlund relayed phone conversations they had with the adjacent neighbor regarding a lot line dispute.
With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of Facts.
Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact and Decision
Name of Applicant: Knife River on behalf of Michael Gamache Date: April 7, 2021
Location/Legal Description: The SW¼NW ¼, Section Three (3), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 23.03.23.000.
Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive use of the property consisting of aggregate mining in a Rural Residential Zoning 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? Aggregate mining.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Aggregate mining to create a pond.
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? Existing road.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Existing pit.
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
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 ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Not needed – vegetative cover 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? ______________________________________________________
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? Via 38th Ave NW.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows: CUP tied to LOW County Road #6 project.
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 ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/S/P Horntvedt/Johnson. All in favor, none opposed. With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:59 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Johnson/Marhula