LAND & WATER
July 10, 2019
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on July 10, 2019
Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane, Dave Marhula, Marshall Nelson, and Wes Johnson. 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: June 5, 2019
M/S/P Marhula/Head
Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
– Wes Johnson – Steve Cyrus Request
Planning Commission – New Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-06CU by Elizabeth Carlson: The North 620 feet of the NE¼ of the NE¼ of Section Thirty (30), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, Parcel ID# 02.30.11.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit development consisting of a recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation Zoning District.
Mio asked Ms. Carlson to come to the table and explain her request.
Ms. Carlson explained that she would like expand her current recreational vehicle campground with 17 additional recreational vehicle campsites to her existing 17-unit campground.
Discussion ensued between Ms. Carlson and the Board. The board asked questions regarding how the sewage would be handled for the campground. Ms. Carlson explained that she has talked with Loren Horner to construct a mound system that will meet code. Discussion then ensued about the need for a storm shelter and also if the proposed addition would meet the allowed density.
Land and Water Planning director Josh Stromlund mentioned that the proposed addition will need to have a storm shelter of evacuation plan. Also, Mr. Stromlund stated that Ms. Carlson’s proposed addition was well below the density that she is allowed.
Mio then read a letter into the record from Jim Merickel and Lorraine Carlson. Mio then asked if there was anybody present that would like to comment on the request. Doug Herzog then stated that he supported the request and had verbal consent from other neighbors that they supported the request.
Mio asked the Board if they had any 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: Elizabeth Carlson Date: July 10, 2019
Location/Legal Description: The North 620 feet of the NE¼ of the NE¼ of Section Thirty (30), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, Parcel ID# 02.30.11.000.
Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit development consisting of a recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation Zoning District.
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? Commercial area.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Meet Minnesota Department of Health standards.
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? No change.
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.
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? May or may not be 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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 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? Use existing road.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Same usage.
9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Resort area.
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? New system to be installed.
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? New system to be designed and installed.
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? Working with Department of Natural Resources for additional spaces for docking.
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? ________________________________________________________________
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? On site.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows: Meet Minnesota Department of Health and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 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 ( )
July 10, 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 Marhula to approve the request with conditions.
Motion seconded by Nelson.
All in favor, motion passed.
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-07CU by Thomas and Erin Olson: A tract of land in Government Lot 3, Section Thirty (30), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West, Parcel ID# 16.30.32.020. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential District (R-2).
Mio asked Mr. Olson to come to the table and explain his request.
Mr. Olson explained that he would like to operate a Short-term Vacation Rental.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Olson and the Board. The board asked questions regarding the septic system on the property. Mr. Olson explained that he was going to have a new system installed. The board then asked if Mr. Olson would be managing the property himself or having somebody manage it for him. Mr. Olson explained that he would be managing it himself.
Mio asked the Board if they had any 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: Thomas and Erin Olson Date: July 10, 2019
Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Government Lot 3, Section Thirty (30), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West, Parcel ID# 16.30.32.020.
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? Resort area.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Upgrade of system (septic).
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? To use existing roads and driveway.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Residential and agriculture.
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? New system to be designed.
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 designed for project.
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? Not needed.
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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No greater than 4’ x 8’.
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: CUP expires on sale or exchange of property.
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 ( )
July 10, 2019 ____________________ 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, motion passed.
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-08CU by Gregg Hennum: A tract of land in Government Lot 1, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.25.21.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit development consisting of recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation Zoning District.
Mio asked Mr. Hennum to come to the table and explain his request.
Mr. Hennum explained that he would like to construct a 34-site recreational vehicle campground that would be seasonal with playground and dumpsters on site.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Hennum and the Board. The board asked questions regarding how the sewage would be handled for the campground. Mr. Hennum stated that he will hopefully get approval to connect into the Wheelers Point Sanitary District.
Density was then discussed regarding how many units would be allowed. Based on current density standards Mr. Hennum would be allowed 28 units. It was discussed that the Land and Water Planning office is looking to change density standards that may allow for 2 additional units however this is still in the works and may or may not be approved.
Mio then asked if there was anybody present that would like to comment on the request. Joyce Beckel then asked about if the possibility of if the sites would be allowed to be used in the winter. Mr. Hennum stated that the campground rules do not allow winter use and that the water will be shut off and drained and the electricity will be turned off for the winter and that the campground will not be plowed in the winter time.
Al Thompson, owner of Lake of the Woods Marine to the west, stated that his concern is a fence up to his property. Mr. Thompson stated that he and Mr. Hennum had spoken about a fence and agreed that it would need to be constructed to be 8’ tall and be enclosed all the way to the bottom so no pets could get under it into his business. Mr. Thompson also stated that he could speak as to the possibility of connection to the Wheelers Point Sanitary district. He stated that the district is putting in stubs for business that are outside of the current district to connect after 1 year assuming they have the capacity.
Mio asked the Board if they had any 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: Gregg Hennum Date: July 10, 2019
Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Government Lot 1, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.25.21.010.
Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit development consisting of a recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation Zoning District.
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? To meet Minnesota Department of Health standards.
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.
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? Access off Bur Oak Road.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Resort area.
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? Designed into project.
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? New well, septic or sanitary sewer district.
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? Natural on the North side and 8’ fence on 3 other sides.
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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? In application a 3’ x 5’ with lights
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. 8’ to ground fence on south and west sides also extend east side fence to ground. 2. Approved to current density standards.
3. Must meet Minnesota Department of Health regulations.
4. Must meet 3000 square foot lot size.
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 ( )
July 10, 2019 ________________________
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 Marhula to approve the request with conditions.
Motion seconded by Nelson.
All in favor, motion passed.
Motion made by Horntvedt to close Board of Adjustment.
Motion seconded by Head
All in favor, motion passed.
Mio opened the Board of Adjustment meeting.
Board of Adjustment – New Business
Consideration of Variance #19-03V by Steven and Deborah Cyrus: A tract of land in the NE¼ of the NW¼, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.28.21.040. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 603 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a deck at a fifty (50) foot setback which exceeds the allowable 15% of the existing setback of the structure to Bostic Creek. The Bostic Creek is a Tributary River Segment
Mio asked Mr. Cyrus to come to the table and explain the request. Mr. Cyrus stated that he wants to construct a 12’ deck on his new trailer house.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Cyrus and the Board. The Board asked about the location of the deck and if it could be moved to make it not encroach as far towards the river.
Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Steven and Deborah Cyrus Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 19.28.21.040 Variance Application #: 19-03V
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 setback.
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? Residential/resort area.
3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Size and shape of property.
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?
YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Request is outside of regulations.
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? See #3.
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 )
July 10, 2019 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio
Chair, Board of Adjustment
Motion made by Nelson to approve the request.
Motion seconded by Horntvedt.
McFarlane, Mio, Marhula, and Head opposed. Motion denied.
– Consideration of Variance #19-04V by Steven Theis: A tract of land in the NE¼SE¼ of Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 24.18.31.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 501.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to create a lot of less than five (5) acres in size in a Rural Residential District (R-2).
Mio asked Mr. Theis to come to the table and explain the request.
Mr. Theis explained that he is looking to sell the east side of Hooper Creek which is 1.8 acres that does not meet the 5-acre minimum lot size to sell in a rural residential district.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Theis and the Board. The Board asked about why he can’t sell a 5-acre tract. Mr. Theis then explained that he would like to build on the other side of the river sometime in the future.
Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Steven Theis Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 24.18.31.000 Variance Application #: 19-04V
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? Variance meets intent.
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? Residential.
3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Hooper Creek – not public waters.
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Hooper Creek.
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? Hooper Creek and land layout.
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 ( x ) DENIED ( )
July 10, 2019 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio
Chair, Board of Adjustment
Motion made by Horntvedt to approve the request.
Motion seconded by Nelson
All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.
– Consideration of Variance #19-05V by Peter Brown: Lot 5, Block 3, Rocky Point Townsite, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 14.50.03.050. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow an addition that will not meet the required 75’ setback from Lake of the Woods and will not meet the required 10’ setback from the lot line. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
Mio asked Mr. Brown to come to the table and explain the request.
Mr. Brown explained that he would like to enclose his existing deck on the front of the cabin.
Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Brown. The board explained that one issue that they had with the request is that if they were granting the variance it would allow Mr. Brown to be closer to the water than any other property in the area and would cause all the others to want to be closer as a result.
Mio then read a letter into the record from Renee Chapman.
Mio then asked if anybody in attendance had any comments on the request.
Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Peter Brown Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 14.50.03.050 Variance Application #: 19-05V
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? Encroaches on setbacks.
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? Residential.
3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property? YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Adjacent properties are at approximately the same setback.
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner? YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Landowner request of a change.
5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remain recreational.
6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Setbacks.
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 )
July 10, 2019 _____________________________ Date Tom Mio
Chair, Board of Adjustment
Motion made by McFarlane to deny.
Motion seconded by Head
All in favor, Nelson opposed. Motion carried.
– Consideration of Variance #19-06V by Tim Stauffenecker: The South ½ of Lots 8 and 9, Rocky Point Townsite, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 14.50.05.081. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow a new structure that will not meet the required 20’ setback from the Right-of-Way (ROW) of Beach Lane NW. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
Mio asked Mr. Stauffenecker to come to the table and explain the request.
Mr. Stauffenecker explained that he would like to bring in a new modular home to replace the existing house that was constructed in 1947.
Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Stauffenecker. The board asked who maintains Beach Lane NW. Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund explained that Beach Lane NW is a road that was created during the platting of the area and is not maintained by the county.
The board then asked Mr. Stauffenecker why he could not move the house farther back in his yard and give him a larger front yard instead of having a back yard. Mr. Stauffenecker explained that it would be difficult to use the existing buildings.
The board then asked Mr. Stauffenecker what he planned to do with septic from the new structure. Mr. Stauffenecker then explained that he has been having problems with his existing septic system and has no room for a mound system, and plans to install two concrete holding tanks.
Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Tim Stauffenecker Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 14.50.05.081 Variance Application #: 19-06V
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? Variance with conditions will meet intent.
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.
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size.
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 Size__________
Condition(s): New building no closer to Beach Avenue than current building.
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 ( )
July 10, 2019 _____________________________ Date Tom Mio
Chair, Board of Adjustment
Motion made by Head to approve the request with conditions.
Motion seconded by Johnson
All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.
– Consideration of Variance #19-07V by Downrigger Properties, LLC: That part of the Northeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, lying and being West of the center of the channel of Bostic Creek – Parcel ID# 19.21.31.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to construct a roofed pavilion that will not meet the required 75’ setback from Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
Mio asked Karen Pierce to come to the table and explain the request.
Ms. Pierce explained that they would like to put up a roofed structure over an existing cement slab and use the roofed area for shore lunches.
Discussion ensued between the board and Ms. Pierce. The board asked if the planned roof would be shingled or if it would be sheet metal and if the planned structure would have any walls. Ms. Pierce explained that the structure is not planned to have any walls or be enclosed in any way and that it would be a shingled roof to match the existing structures on site.
Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Downrigger Properties, LLC Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 19.21.31.000 Variance Application #: 19-07V
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? Resort/commercial property.
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? Resort activity.
3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location to shoreline.
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Shoreland location.
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 size and location.
Condition(s): Roof only – can never enclose. Completed by 12/31/19.
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 ( )
July 10, 2019 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio
Chair, Board of Adjustment
Motion made by McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.
Motion seconded by Nelson.
All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.
– Consideration of Variance #19-08V by Lyle and Pauline Longtin: A tract in the NW ¼ of Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 14.05.31.040. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to construct a screened porch that will not meet the required 10’ setback from the lot line. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
Mio asked Mr. Longtin to come to the table and explain his request.
Mr. Longtin explained that they would like to put up a 12’ x 18’ Screen Poarch that would be within a foot of the lot line.
Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Longtin. The board then asked Mr. Longtin why he could not move the cabin to meet the setback. Mr. Longtin stated that he would like to preserve the open space of his existing property for his grandchildren to play in.
Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Lyle and Pauline Longtin Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 14.05.31.040 Variance Application #: 19-08V
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? Further encroachment on the lot line.
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? Residential/seasonal use.
3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property? YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Has enough room to move the building.
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner? YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Request for additional encroachment.
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? See #1, #3, and #4.
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 )
July 10, 2019 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio
Chair, Board of Adjustment
Motion made by McFarlane to deny the request.
Motion seconded by Marhula.
All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.
With no further business for the Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of Adjustment.
Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head
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.