Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on May 5, 2021 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken  Horntvedt, Dave Marhula Reed McFarlane and Marshall Nelson. The following members were  absent: Wes Johnson. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund,  Richard Corle, Connor Ambrose, Travis Barclay, Brian Kabat, and Brian Ney. 

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. 

Approval of the Agenda:  

Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 7, 2021 – M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #21-04 by Kristine Hawkins: Lot 2, Block 1, Harris  Addition, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range  Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 19.63.01.020. Applicant is requesting a variance  Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct a  platform at less than the required ten (10) foot property line setback; construct an addition  at less than the required seventy-five (75) foot Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL)  setback from Lake of the Woods; and a variance from Section 603 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct a platform that will exceed the required  fifteen (15%) of the existing structure setback from the Ordinary High-Water Level  (OHWL) of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development lake. 

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner was present to come to the table and explain their request. Mr.  Ambrose approached the table and explained he was the representative for this request. Mr.  Ambrose explained that the property has been in the family for years and they are looking to  update the property consistent with other improvements that have occurred in the area. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Ambrose ensued. They discussed the lot size, setback  requirements, addition locations and the Wheeler’s Point Sanitary District. 

With no further discussion from the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any  objections. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE

Name of Applicant: Kristine Hawkins Date: May 5, 2021 Parcel #: 19.63.01.020 Variance Application #: 21-04V

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? Currently residential. 

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? Remains residential. 

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 change. 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 

Condition(s): 

1) Additions cannot exceed proposed sketch. 

2) Completed by 12/31/22. 

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 ( ) 

Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/S/P Nelson/Horntvedt. 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 Nelson/Marhula. 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 Horntvedt/Head. All in favor,  none opposed.  

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-07CU by Tillman Infrastructure,  LLC, on behalf of Richard and Teresa Humeniuk: The SE¼SW¼, Section Twelve  (12), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel ID# – 31.12.31.080. 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). 

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner or a representative was present to come to the table and explain  their request. Mr. Brian Kabat came to the table and explained he was the representative for the  project. He explained that this request is part of the nationwide First Net communication project  

being conducted to assist in emergency response. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Kabat ensued. They discussed tower height, lighting, and possible leases from other communication  vendors. 

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any  objections. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Tillman Infrastructure, LLC, on behalf of Richard and Teresa Humeniuk  Date: May 5, 2021 

Location/Legal Description: The SE¼SW¼, Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty  (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel ID# – 31.12.31.080 

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 commercial  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? Communication and safety network. 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Will increase safety. 

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 change. 

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 a County Road. 

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 ( ) 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 ( ) 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 ( ) 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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ The specific conditions of approval are as follows: Follow FCC and FAA guidelines. 

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: M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane. All in favor, none  opposed.  

– Consideration of Final Plat of Hooper Creek: A parcel of land located in Government  Lots (One) 1, (Five) 5, and (Six) 6 all within Section Eighteen (18), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West. Applicant is requesting to  create sixteen (16) tracts for a residential development. 

Mr. Mio asked if a representative was present from Hooper Creek LLC was present and to come  forward and explain the request. Mr. Brian Ney stated he could be the representative for Hooper  Creek, LLC. Mr. Ney provided a brief history of the proposed subdivision; however, wasn’t  aware of the deficiencies with the submittal of the final plat. Discussion between the Board and  Mr. Ney ensued. They discussed the deficiencies and how they could be rectified. 

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio asked the Board of what  they wanted to do. The Board felt the deficiencies should be adequately addressed prior to  making a recommendation to the County Board. 

Motion to Table the Final Plat: M/S/P Marhula/Nelson. All in favor, none opposed. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-08CU by T & A Rentals, LLC: Lot 6,  Block 1, Rainy River Retreat, Section Twenty-four (24), Range One Hundred Sixty-two 

(162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#: 19.62.01.060. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a Residential  Development (R1) Zoning District. 

Mr. Mio asked if a representative was present from T & A Rentals, LLC was present and to  come forward and explain the request. Mr. Travis Barclay stated he was the landowner. Mr.  Barlcay provided a brief history of the proposed request and future plans in the neighborhood.  Discussion between the Board and Mr. Barclay ensued. They discussed the rental of both sides  of the duplex, parking, occupancy limits, quiet hours and criteria regarding resort status. 

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any  objections. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: T & A Rentals, LLC Date: May 5, 2021 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 6, Block 1, Rainy River Retreat, Section Twenty-four (24),  Range One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  

West – Parcel ID#: 19.62.01.060 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.B  of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term  transient rental in a Residential Development (R1) 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? Housing and 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? No change. 

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? Adjacent to Pickeral Trail. 

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? 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? Well has been tested and on 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 ( ) 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? Parking in front of unit. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) CUP for North end of duplex only. 

2) Must meet MDH requirements. 

3) Terminates on transfer or sale. 

4) Must pay lodging tax. 

5) Quiet time 10:30 pm to 6 am. 

6) Must meet State Fire Code. 

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: M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane. All in favor, none opposed. With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:07 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Head/Nelson