LAND & WATER
March 4, 2020
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on March 4, 2020
Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Marshall Nelson, Dave Marhula, Scott Head and Wes Johnson. Members absent: Tom Mio and 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 Head/Nelson
Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 5, 2020
Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
Planning Commission – Old Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-02CU by Powder River Development Services, LLC: the NE4NE4 Less Deeded; NW4NE4, Section Nine (9), Range One Hundred Fifty-eight (158) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 43.09.11.000. 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 commercial communications tower in a Rural Residential District (R2).
Brandon Peterson of Powder River Development came forward opted to speak after listening to public comments.
Mr. Horntvedt opened up the meeting to public comments. Members of the public expressed opposition to the request. They expressed concern over placement of the tower, property value and health concerns. Alternate tower sites were proposed by the public. Multiple letters from the public were read into the record in opposition to the request. One letter of support from AT&T was read in to the record.
Discussion between Mr. Peterson, the public and the Commission ensued. They discussed the placement of the tower, FCC regulations
Mr. Horntvedt moved on to the Findings of Facts.
Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision
Name of Applicant: __AT&T; Powder River Development Services LLC_____ Date: _March 4, 2020_____
Location/Legal Description: The NE ¼ NE ¼ Less Deeded; NW ¼ NE ¼, Section Nine (9), Range One Hundred Fifty-eight (158) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 43.09.11.000_______________
Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance operate a communications tower 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? _Meets requirements______________________________________
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? _Improve communications__________________________________
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? ______________________________________________________
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
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? _Fencing and 100’ x 100’ area______________________________
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 required_________________________________________
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
The specific conditions of approval are as follows: Must meet FCC guidelines for communication towers, must meet FAA guidelines for communications towers_________________________________________________
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 ( )
Acting Chair, Planning Commission
This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. Motion to Approve the request with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Head
All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes.
– Consideration of Preliminary Plat Common Interest Community #4 A Planned Community Eagle Ridge First Supplement: a 2.26-acre tract in the SE corner of Government Lot Eight (8), Section One (1), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Oak Island). Applicant is requesting to create six tracts to accompany the Sportsman’s Eagle Ridge Common Interest Community as lots for storage.
Mr. Stromlund commented on the issues with this plat from the last meeting. He stated that the issues have been addressed by the applicant and their surveyor.
Motion to Approve: M/S/P Nelson/Johnson
Planning Commission – New Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-03CU by J & L Hennum, Inc.: The Vacated Plat of Jesme’s Addition to Riverview in Section Twenty-four (24), Township One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West. Applicant is requesting 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 recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation Zoning District.
The applicant submitted a letter to postpone his application until next month, the letter was read into the record.
Motion to table: M/S/P Marhula/Head
Motion to close Planning Commission meeting
Motion to open Board of Adjustment meeting
Board of Adjustment – New Business
– Consideration of Variance #20-02V by Mike and Bonny Edin: Lots 5 and 6, Birch Drive, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34)W, Parcel ID# 02.52.01.050. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 501.2.2 and 605 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to split two contiguous non-conforming lots of record and allow the impervious surface to exceed 25% on Lot 5. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
Mr. & Mrs. Edin came forward to explain their request. They would like to split his 200’ x 200’ into two 100’ x 200’ lots. He explained that there are two residences on this lot and that they have a buyer interested in one of the lots.
Discussion ensued between the Board and the Edins. Structures, septic systems and setbacks were discussed. Mr. Stromlund explained the impervious surface coverage and why a variance is required.
Hearing no more discussion on the variance, Horntvedt 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: Michael and Bonny Edin Date: March 4, 2020 Parcel #: 02.52.01.050 Variance Application #: 20-02V
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 ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Existing parcels___________________
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 sizes__________________________
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Original plats and existing buildings___
5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _No change_______________________
6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Original plat, existing buildings______
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 ( )
___3-4-2020_________________ _____________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt
Acting Chair, Board of Adjustment
Motion to Approve as presented: Marhula/Nelson
With no further business, Horntvedt entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:19pm. Adjournment: M/S/P Head/Nelson