Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on February 6, 2019 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken  Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane, Dave Marhula 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 amend agenda – M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 9, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustments – New Business 

– Consideration of after-the-fact Variance #19-01V by Scott Wold: A tract of land  in the NE¼ of the SE¼, Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.21.13.021. Applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance from Section 4.1.4 of the Lake of the Woods County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System  Ordinance and Section 502.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to  allow the applicant to create an after- the-fact a non-conforming lot with less than the  required 100’ of frontage on Bostic Creek and without 2 sites for a standard septic  system in an area that is zoned as Special Protection (SP). 

Mio asked Mr. Wold to come to the table and explain his request. 

Mr. Wold explained that he would like to build a seasonal cabin on the property and eventually  build pole barn for storage. He plans to use it primarily for ice fishing in the winter, it will not be  a residence. He explained that he was originally planning to purchase the entire 10-acre tract but  Beckels purchased the entire lot and he purchased a portion of it, not realizing that splitting the  lot would change what he was able to do on the lot. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Wold and the Board. Reunifying the lots, easements, property  lines, elevations and septic rules were discussed. 

The Board opened up the discussion to the public. The Board heard questions and comments  from Carl Olson and Jill Martinson. 

Mio read three letters into the record: one from Vic/Jeri Beckel, one from Tony/Patty Beckel and  one from Brent Mason of the MN DNR. 

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: Scott Wold Date: February 6, 2019 Parcel #: 19.21.13.021 Variance Application #: 19-01V 

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 ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? _Does not meet standards for buildable  lots____ 

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? __Housing site__________________ 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Wetland /special protection________ 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Wetland_______________________ 5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? 

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Will not_______________________ 6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? 

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Lot standards/special protection_______ 

Condition(s):  

_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) DENIED ( x ) 

February 6, 2019 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to deny the request. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of  Adjustments. 

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #19-02CU by Jerry and  Luann Hennum: A tract of land lying in in Government Lot 1 and in the Southeast  Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE¼NW¼), Section Twenty-eight (28), Township  One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Lake of the Woods  County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 24.28.21.030. Applicant is requesting a Conditional  Use Permit as required by Section 401-B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to allow a commercial business consisting of a short-term vacation rental  in a Residential District (R1). 

Mio asked Mrs. Diana Hennum (Daughter-in-law) to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mrs. Hennum explained that they have a guest house on their property that they would like to  rent out when they are not there. 

Discussion ensued between Mrs. Hennum and the Board. The Board asked about how long the  house has been rented for and Mrs. Hennum answered that they had been renting since  September. House size/occupancy, lot line locations and septic were discussed. 

Mio read two letters into the record: one from the Minnesota Department of Health and the other  from Scott Schmisek. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed to the Findings  of Facts.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Jerry & Luann Hennum Date: February  6, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land lying in in Government Lot 1 and in the Southeast  Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE¼NW¼), Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) – Parcel ID# 24.28.21.030. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-B 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 Residential 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? _Growth corridor________________________________________ 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? _Must meet MDH/County requirements______________________ 

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Not in 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? _State Hwy 172_________________________________________

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? 

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? _Residential____________________________________________ 

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? _Must meet MDH requirements_____________________________ 

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? _Must meet MDH requirements____________________________ 

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? __No change/adequate____________________________________ 

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 ( x ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___None 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) Survey site to make sure all buildings within  lot lines. 2) Meet all MDH requirements. 3) CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property. 4)  Lodging tax for LOW County must be paid retro to 9/20/18___________________________ 

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 6, 2018 _______________________________________  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 McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Head.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

With no further business for the Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning  Commission.  

Adjournment: M/S/P