LAND & WATER
June 7, 2023
7:00 P.M. on June 7, 2023
Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Marshall Nelson, Ken Horntvedt, Monica Dohmen and Dave Marhula. Absent Member: Nancy Dunnell 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–Marshall/Tom. All in favor.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 3, 2023- Motion to approve- Dave/Monica. All in favor. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.
Planning Commission – New Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Application #23-06CU by Shane Meyer: A 4.25-acre tract of land in the NE¼NE¼ in Section Thirty-four (34), Township One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.34.11.010. Applicant is 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 vacation rental in a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District.
Shane Meyer was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.
Name of Applicant: Shane Meyer Date: June 7, 2023
Location/Legal Description: A 4.25 acre tract of land in the NE1/4NE1/4, Section Thirty-four (34), Township One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.34.11.010.
Project Proposal: Applicant is 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 vacation rental in a Rural Residential (R2) 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? Recreational development.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________
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? 28th Street NW.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural 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? Upgraded sewer system.
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? Existing well and upgraded sewer system.
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? 2’x3’ sign by driveway.
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? Plenty of space in yard.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows:
1. Terminates upon sale or transfer of the property.
2. Maximum occupancy of twelve (12) people.
3. Follow conditions outlined in the application.
4. No rental until sewer system is upgraded.
5. Follow Minnesota Department of Health guidelines, if applicable.
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 ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Tom/Marshall. All in favor.
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-07CU by Michael Hangsleben: Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Schmidt-Waag Subdivision, Government Lot Two (2), Township One Hundred Sixty three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.53.01.110. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of constructing of an access to Lake of the Woods.
Mr. Hangslaben was present for the meeting to discuss the request with the board and answer any questions. Questions were asked about the amount of material to be moved and whether the activity might interfere with the existing septic system. Access will be on the South side of the cabin. One letter was entered into the minutes. The board then moved to the findings of fact.
Name of Applicant: Michael Hangslaben Date: May 3, 2023
Location/Legal Description: Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Schmidt-Waag Subdivision, Government Lot Two (2), Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33). – Parcel ID# 16.53.01.110.
Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to move more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of constructing of an access to Lake of the Woods.
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? Recreational lake access.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________
9) 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? _______________________________________________________________________
10) 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? No change.
11) 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? _______________________________________________________________________
12) 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? Rock rip rap.
13) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________
14) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Ramp on neighboring property.
9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Lake access.
11) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 14) 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? ____________________________________________________________________
15) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________
16) 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? _______________________________________________________________________
18) 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? _______________________________________________________________________
19) 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? _______________________________________________________________________
20) 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? _______________________________________________________________________
21) 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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________
The specific conditions of approval are as follows:
6. Follow DNR guidelines for boat ramp.
7. Must be ten (10) feet from lot line.
8. Maintain erosion control measures during and after construction.
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 ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Marshall/Tom. All in favor.
Planning Commission – Old Business
– Consideration of Amendments to the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. Discussion topics include Short Term Vacation Rental new section. Discussion about adding people by bringing in a camper or kids in a tent. This is specifically addressed in ordinance. Discussion about dictating specific quiet hours. Changes to ordinance will make STVR’s an IUP instead of a CUP. Josh noted that the ordinance will now have specific language about landowner must have COC in hand prior to operation of a short term rental including when a Winter Agreement has been issued. This allows the Board of Adjustment to move ahead with approving a STVR during winter months, but not allowing operation until the septic system has been properly inspected.
Motion to accept Short Term Vacation Rental Application as drafted by Monica/Marshall. All in favor. Motion to Adjourn at 7:54 PM- Marshall/Tom. All in favor.