LAND & WATER
March 3, 2021
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on March 3, 2021
Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula and Marshall Nelson. The following members were absent: Reed McFarlane 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 Horntvedt/Nelson
Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 3, 2021 – M/S/P Marhula/Head
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None
Board of Adjustment – New Business
– Consideration of Variance #21-01V by Gregg Hennum: Lot 14 Block 1 Birch Acres Section Twenty-four (24), Range One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,
Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#: 19.61.01.140. Applicant is requesting a Variance as required by Sections 1012 and 1013 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to exceed allowable density and impervious surface coverage in the non-shoreland area of a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District.
Mr. Mio asked Mr. Hennum to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Hennum explained that he has challenges with staffing at his resort due to lack of housing in the area. He would like to construct small housing units for staff close to his resort. The proposed units are small, efficiency units with minimal space requirements.
Discussion between the Board and Mr. Hennum ensued. They discussed construction, length of renting, stormwater management and occupancy.
With no further discussion from the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio moved on 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: Gregg Hennum Date: March 3, 2021 Parcel #: 19.61.01.140 Variance Application #: 21-01V
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 ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Development in Growth Corridor______
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__________________
3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Already residential____________
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Lack of housing in area_____
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? __Need housing______________
Condition(s): __Completed by 12/31/2025 based on property sketch provided. For long term rental only_____
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 ( )
____3/3/21____________ ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio
Chair, Board of Adjustment
Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula. All in favor, none opposed.
With no further business in front of the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio entertained a motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting.
Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head. All in favor, none opposed.
Mr. Mio entertained a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting.
Motion to open the Planning Commission meeting: M/S/P Marhula/Head. All in favor, none opposed.
Planning Commission – New Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-03CU by Gregg Hennum: Lot 14 Block 1 Birch Acres Section Twenty-four (24), Range One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#: 19.61.01.140. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to establish a Residential Planned Unit Development in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District.
Minimal discussion between the board and the applicant ensued. They discussed above ground fuel tank storage.
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: _Gregg Hennum______________________ Date: _March 3, 2021______ Location/Legal Description: _Lot 14, Block 1, Birch Acres Subdivision___________________ Project Proposal: _Residential PUD in R1 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? Residential housing in 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? Stormwater to be addressed.
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? See #2.
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 from Fishery Road.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Residential zoning.
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? Wheeler’s Point Sanitary District.
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 and Sanitary 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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? If required.
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? Fence on NE side.
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 plan.
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 ( x ) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( )
March 3, 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 Approve with conditions: M/S/P Nelson/Marhula, All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes.
With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:33 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Nelson/Marhula