LAND & WATER
February 3, 2021
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on February 3, 2021
Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken Horntvedt, Wes Johnson, Dave Marhula and Marshall Nelson. The following members were absent: Reed McFarlane. 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 Nelson/Horntvedt
Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 6th, 2021 – Motion to change adjournment, Reed McFarlane was not present at the last meeting so he could not have motioned to adjourn. M/S/P – Horntvedt/Head
Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
– Tom Mio indicated a conflict of interest for CUP 21-02CU
– Dave Marhula indicated a conflict of interest for CUP 21-01CU
Planning Commission – Old Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-01CU by Grant and Savanna Slick: A 4.6-acre tract in Section Twenty-nine (29), Range One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.29.22.020. Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a Rural Residential Zoning (R2).
Mr. Mio asked the Slicks to come forward and explain their request. The Slicks explained that they recently purchased a new property adjacent to their existing short-term vacation rental with the intent of renting it as a short-term vacation rental. They presented additional information regarding potential ‘house rules’ for the property in response to neighbor complaints.
Discussion between the Commission and the Slicks ensued. They discussed property line demarcation.
Mr. Mio then opened the meeting to comments from the public. Several members of the public spoke in opposition to the request. One additional letter was noted for the record in support of the application.
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: Grant & Savanna Slick_________________ Date: February 3, 2021_____
Location/Legal Description: A Tract of land in Section Twenty-nine (29), Range One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.29.22.020
Project Proposal: Operate a short-term transient rental 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? Support additional business.
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? ______________________________________________________
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? County Road #75.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Remains residential with CUP approval.
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? Septic will be checked in Spring.
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? To be checked.
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Not changing from residential.
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? County Road #75 and onsite parking.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows:
- Septic inspection Spring of 2021.
- Rules must be posted on website.
- Boat speed
- Quite times @ 10:00 pm
- Capacity of 8 on the property
- No tents or campers for additional renters/capacity
- Contact information must be available for complaints
- No events during rentals
- Breaking rules result in eviction immediately
- Dogs and pets on leashes or restraints
- Trespass issues on neighboring property
- Visibly mark property lines
- ATV and snowmobile traffic
- CUP expires on transfer/sale
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 ( ) February 3, 2021
This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.
Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head. All in favor, none opposed. Marhula: abstained. Motion passes.
Planning Commission – New Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-02CU by L & S Investing, LLC: Government Lots 3, 4, and 5, less deeded in Section Seven (7), Range One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.07.32.009. Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District.
Mio asked the applicants to come forward and explain his request. Mr. Steinbach and Mrs. Lawrence explained that they are in the process of converting the main lodge of the bible camp in to a 4-bedroom residence to be rented as a VRBO. They explained that their long term goals are to subdivide the larger parcel.
Discussion between the board and the applicant ensued. They discussed renting out additional units on the site, resort definitions, parking and capacity.
Mio read correspondence received regarding this request in to the record.
Mr. Mio then opened the meeting to comments from the public. Several members of the public expressed concerns regarding this request.
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: L & S Investing LLC Date: February 3, 2021
Location/Legal Description: Government Lots 3, 4, and 5, less deeded in Section Seven (7), Range One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.07.32.009
Project Proposal: Operate a short-term transient rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1)
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? Promote additional businesses.
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Will not – brushing along river only.
5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Building not in the floodplain.
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? County Road #30.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? With CUP approval.
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? To be inspected Spring 2021.
11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change.
12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? To be inspected Spring 2021.
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? County Road #30 and onsite parking.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows:
- Septic inspection Spring of 2021.
- Rules must be posted on website
- Boat speed
- Quite times @ 10:00 pm
- Contact information must be available for complaints
- No tents or campers for additional renters/occupants
- No events during rentals
- Breaking rules result in eviction immediately
- Dogs and pets on leashes or restrained
- Trespass issues on neighboring property
- ATV and Snowmobile traffic on property controlled
- Capacity limited to septic sized to 75 gal/person/day
- CUP based on current building size and dimensions on Lot #3 (3.41 acres) on conceptual plat.
- CUP expires on transfer/sale.
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 ( ) February 3, 2021
This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. Motion to Approve with conditions: M/S/P Head/Marhula, Mio abstained. Motion passes.
With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Head/Marhula