LAND & WATER
November 2, 2022
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting
7:00 P.M. on November 2, 2022
Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Nancy Dunnell, Ken Horntvedt, Wes Johnson, Marshall Nelson, Monica Dohmen and Dave Marhula. 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 –Dave/Ken. All in favor.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 5, 2022- Motion to approve- Marshall/Dave. All in favor. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.
Planning Commission – Old Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-14CU by Blue Line Consulting, LLC: The NW¼NW¼, Section Nine (9), Township One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID # 17.09.22.000. 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 Short-Term Vacation Rental in a Rural Residential Development (R2) Zoning District.
David Hahn was present to discuss this request with the board and to answer any questions. Tom Mio asked for clarification about window type being sliders. A suggestion about adding an exterior stairway for the 2nd floor in the event of a fire was deemed a good idea by David. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.
Name of Applicant: Blue Line Consulting, LLC (David Hahn) Date: November 15, 2022 Location/Legal Description: NW¼NW¼, Section 9, T. 162N, R. 34W – Parcel ID # 17.09.22.000
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 Development (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? Rural Residential 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? Access via 44th 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? Sized for a 5-bedroom dwelling.
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? Private well and septic.
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? 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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? Not planned or needed.
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 parking.
If all answers to the Findings of Fact-Criteria are either “Yes” or are “Not Applicable” to the request, the criteria for granting the conditional use permit have been met. The conditional use permit will maintain the goals of safety, health, and general welfare of the public.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows:
1. The Conditional Use Permit terminates upon sale or transfer of the property.
2. Quiet time from 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.
3. Must post local contact information in the dwelling.
4. Must meet Minnesota Department of Health regulations.
Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Dave/Marshall. All in favor.
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-15CU by Dale and Connie Peterson: A tract in the Northeast Corner of Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID # 14.05.31.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct an inland harbor connected to Lake of the Woods and to cumulatively move more than the allowed amounts of material within and outside of the shore impact zone. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
Dale and Connie Peterson were present to discuss their request with the board. Dale noted they are building a harbor and a berm to enhance and protect their property from high water events. Permits from DNR and Army Corp are all presently in order. The harbor will allow for 13 total slips. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.
Name of Applicant: Dale and Connie Peterson Date: November 2, 2022
Location/Legal Description: A tract in the Northeast Corner of Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID # 14.05.31.010
Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct an inland harbor connected to Lake of the Woods and to cumulatively move more than the allowed amounts of material within and outside of the shore impact zone. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
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? Resort development, additional safe harbor.
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Oversight by DNR and Corps of Engineers, permits all in place.
4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? They will be affected but has been permitted.
5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreline of Lake of the Woods.
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Via DNR and Corps permits and design.
7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Access via County Road 17.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Resort area.
9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Creation of a safe harbor.
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Campsite boats are already using lake and permit limits number of slips in harbor.
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? None needed.
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 (X) N/A ( )
Why or why not? None needed.
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 (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No new traffic.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows:
1. Follow permit designs.
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 Condition (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Ken/Wes. All in favor.
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-16CU by Stacey Manning: Lot 1, Block 3 River Oaks Plat, Section One (1), Township One hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West — Parcel ID# 23.52.03.010. 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
Vacation Rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District within the shoreland area of the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment.
Stacey and Connie Manning were present to discuss the request with the board. Stacey explained the need for a garage for their own storage caused them to buy an adjoining property with an existing garage and a trailer home. This sparked the opportunity to add short term rental to that new parcel. The condition of the existing septic system was questioned. The existing system is no longer up to current requirements. Stacey noted it as a 3-bedroom trailer home. Upgrading the septic system was discussed. A letter was read into the minutes from a John and Deb Copp in opposition to the request. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.
Name of Applicant: Stacey and Connie Manning Date: November 2, 2022
Location/Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 3, River Oaks Plat in Section 1, T. 161N, R. 32W – Parcel ID # 23.52.03.010
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 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? Within the growth corridor, vacation rental.
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? Access via Oak Harbor Drive.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Residential and commercial.
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? But needs to be upgraded.
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? Private well and septic 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? On-site parking.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows:
1. Septic must be upgraded within 2 years from September 20, 2022.
2. CUP terminates upon sale or transfer.
3. No on street parking.
4. Must list local contacts and emergency numbers.
5. Must follow tenant rules listed in application.
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 – Dave/Nancy. All in favor.
Motion to Adjourn at 7:46 PM- Monica/Marshall. All in favor.