June 5, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 5, 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 Environmental Specialist Dane Lynch.  

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: February 6, 2019 

M/S/P McFarlane/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– Marshall Nelson – Vic and Jeri Beckel Request 

Board of Adjustments – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #19-03V by Roger Knutson: A tract of land in the  SW¼ of the SW¼, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty-one  (161) North, Range Thirty-three (32) West, Parcel ID# 22.28.33.010. Applicant is  requesting a Variance as required by Section 503.7 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance, to allow applicant to construct a storage shed less than the  required ten (10) foot lot line setback. 

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

Mr. Knutson explained that he would like to build a storage shed three feet from his East  property line, to allow for him to easily back trailers into the shed. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Knutson and the Board. The location of the shed was discussed,  and possible alternative locations for the shed was discussed. 

Mio read a letter into the record from James Kotila an adjoining property owner. 

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: Roger Knutson Date: June 5, 2019 Parcel #: 22.28.33.010 Variance Application #: 19-02V 

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? ___Violates 10’ 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? ___Storage Shed__________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? ___Placement of building site_______________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? ___Landowner decision ________________ __________________________________________________________________ 

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? ___Other considerations_________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 

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 ) 

June 5, 2019 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to deny the request. 

Motion seconded by Marhula. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

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

Motion made by Marhula to close Board of Adjustment. 

Motion seconded by Nelson 

All in favor, motion passed. 

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-03CU by Vic and Jeri Beckel:  Tract 8, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.28.13.010. Applicant is requesting a  Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a fish house storage park consisting of fifteen  (15) fish houses in a Rural-Residential District (R-2). 

Mio asked Dean Weise to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Weise explained that the Vic & Jeri Beckel are looking to store the fish houses on the far  eastern portion of the lot to be away from the road. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Weise and the Board. The Board asked about the amount of fish  houses and if they would be screened. 

Mio read one letter into the record from Mike Bogart.

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: _Vic & Jeri Beckel___________________ Date: _June 5, 2019___________ 

Location/Legal Description: _Tract 8 Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One hundred sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.28.13.010_______________________ Project Proposal: Operate a fish house storage park consisting of fifteen (15) fish houses in a Rural Residential District (R-2). 

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? ____Fish house storage_____________________________________ 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___With conditions_ 

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? ____See conditions_________________________________________ 

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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __Storage of fish houses adjacent______________________________ 

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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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? ___See conditions__________________________________________ 

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_______________________________________________ 

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? _No parking on-site – Storage only_____________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) A visual barrier must be established and maintained on three sides (North, South and West)  of the storage area with White Spruce not less than five (5) feet high and spaced no further apart  than eight (8) feet. These trees are to be planted in a double row and staggered to provide  maximum visual screening. Planting of said trees is to be conducted no later than December 31,  2019.

2) Storage area is to be located on the Easterly four-hundred (400) feet of the described  property. 

3) Storage area is for said fish house business only. 

4) No more than fifteen (15) rental fish houses on the property. 

5) No client vehicles are to be parked on said property. 

6) Damage caused by business activities, and/or general maintenance to the private road, shall  be the responsibility of the landowner. 

7) No occupation is allowed of said fish houses on site. 

8) Off-season storage of business related equipment must be stored out of sight, either inside  a structure or within the fish house storage area. 

9) The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioner’s may review the conditions  placed upon approval within one (1) year of the date of approval and may require the  establishment and maintenance of a visual buffer, similar to above, be placed parallel to the  westerly boundary of the described property to further enhance the visual screening. 

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 ( ) 

_____________________________________ 

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 Horntvedt..  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-04CU by R&J Developments LLC:  A tract of land in the SE¼SW¼ of Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.61.50.010. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401B of the Lake of the  

Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a plumbing and heating business with  showroom in a Residential District (R-1).

Mio asked Rick Amundson to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Amundson explained that he is looking to build a shop to store his business vehicles and to  have a small show room. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Amundson and the Board. The Board asked about his showroom  and the products that would be sold on the premise. Also, the size and the appearance of the  building was discussed. 

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: _R&J Developments LLC___________________ Date: _June 5,  2019___________ 

Location/Legal Description: _ A tract of land in the SE¼SW¼ of Section Twenty-four (24),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID#  19.61.50.010_____________________ 

Project Proposal: Operate a plumbing and heating business with showroom in a Residential  District (R-1). 

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? __Shared driveway____________________________________ 

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? __State highway – Share driveway________________________ 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Adjacent businesses – Growth corridor ______________________ 

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? _Built to county specs______________________________________ 

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? ___Septic & well designed__________________________________ 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 ( x ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___Not necessary______________________________________

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? __Signage on building__________________________________ 

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? __Parking on-site_____________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _Complete by 12/31/2020__________ 

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 ( ) 

 ________________________________ 

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 Nelson  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-05CU by Jamie Gowdy: Lots 1, 2,  3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Welberg’s Second Addition, Section Thirty-six (36), Township  One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID#  19.68.01.010; 19.68.01.020; 19.68.01.030; 19.68.01.040; 19.68.01.050; and  19.68.01.060. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 401B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate short term vacation rentals on each lot in a Residential District (R-1). 

Mio asked Jamie Gowdy and Alan Fish representing Mr. Gowdy to come to the table and explain  the request.  

Mr. Fish explained that Mr. Gowdy is looking to obtain approval to for the six lots to be able to  have short-term vacation rentals located on the lots. Mr. Fish went on to explain that the area is a  is located near a golf course as well as a couple resorts.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Fish, Mr. Gowdy and the Board. The Board asked about how the  lots would be accessed, the number of lots that were being requested, the proposed layout of the  lots. The Board then asked about the restrictive covenants associated with the lots. Mr. Gowdy  and Mr. Fish stated that they were working to change the covenants of the property. The board  then expressed some concerns regarding the request. Discussion then ensued about between Mr.  Gowdy, Mr. Fish and the board about how the boards concerns will be addressed. 

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: Jamie Gowdy Date: June 5, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Welberg’s Second Addition,  Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.68.01.010; 19.68.01.020; 19.68.01.030; 19.68.01.040; 19.68.01.050; and  19.68.01.060.  

Project Proposal: Operate short-term vacation rentals on each lot in a Residential District (R-1). 

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? _New construction meeting covenants and regulations__________ 

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution,  including sedimentation and nutrient loading?  

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 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? _Adjacent to county road 31________________________________ 

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? _To meet new construction requirements_______________________ 

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 meet new 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 ( ) 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? _Housing_______________________________________________

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___________________________________________ 

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 per each lot_____________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __Must have covenants changed to allow  project_ 

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 ( ) 

 ____________________________ 

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 Nelson  

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 Horntvedt/Marhula 

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.