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