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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 4, 2020 – M/S/P Marhula/Nelson 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – New 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 explained that they felt their first was a success and  were not aware of such a large number of complaints from neighbors. 

Discussion between the Commission and the Slicks ensued. They discussed, at length, the complaints  from the neighbors. The Slicks discussed the rules that they would put in place to prevent the issues  from arising again including addressing guns on the property and quiet hours. They also discussed  guest capacity, septic capacity and zoning. 

Mr. Mio noted several written requests from the public for the record. Mr. Mio had those present  who had also written a letter to read their letter and explain their position. Mr. Mio read the letters of  those not present in to the record.  

Mr. Mio then opened the meeting to comments from the public. Several members of the public spoke  in opposition to the 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: Grant & Savanna Slick_________________ Date: January 6, 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? _County Support in the past_________________________________ 

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 Rd #75________________________________________ 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___Remains same as 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? _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? __No change____________________________________________ 

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 Rd #75 and on-site parking________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __________________________________ 

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 ( ) Denied (X) January 6, 2021 

_____________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

Motion to Deny: M/S/P Nelson/Head. Nelson, Johnson, Head: in favor. Horntvedt, Mio:  opposed. Marhula: abstained. Motion passes.  

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Nelson/Head