LAND & WATER
October 3, 2018
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on October 3, 2018
Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Gerald Levasseur and Dave Marhula. Members absent: Tom Mio, Reed McFarlane and Ed Arnesen. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund.
Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.
Approval of the Agenda:
M/S/P Marhula/Levasseur
Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 5, 2018
M/S/P Marhula/Head
Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
– None
Board of Adjustments – New Business
– Consideration of Variance Application #18-07V by Jason Thomson and Steven Lindgren: Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Walleye Retreat Subdivision in Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred-Sixty-Two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.60.01.060 and 19.60.01.070. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 501.2. of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow applicant to create a Non-Riparian duplex lot which will not meet the required 80,000 square feet within the shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
Horntvedt asked Mr. Thompson to come to the table and explain their request.
Mr. Thompson explained that they would like to place a mobile home on their lot as a cabin for their children and grandchildren. It would be used seasonally.
Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Thompson. Septic system, lot square footage, width requirements and neighboring lots were discussed.
Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Thompson, hearing none Horntvedt proceeded 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: Jason Thomson, Steven Lindgren Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 19.60.01.070 Variance Application #: 18-07V
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? __Shoreland Area____________
_______________________________________________________________
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? __Shoreland Area______________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
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? _Remain Seasonal Use____________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ____Lot size____________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
Condition(s): __Westerly 115’ of Lot 7 to be under common ownership with lot 6
________________________________________________________________________________
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 ( )
October 3, 2018 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt
Acting Chair, Board of Adjustment
Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions.
Motions seconded by Head.
All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.
– Consideration of Variance Application #18–08V by Steven Cyrus: A tract of land in the NE ¼ of the NW ¼, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.28.21.040. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a structure and a Type 1 septic system closer than the required 100’ setback to Bostic Creek. The Bostic Creek is a Tributary River Segment.
Horntvedt asked Mr. Cyrus to come to the table and explain his request.
Mr. Cyrus explained that he wants to place a trailer house on his property closer than the 100’ setback because of the lot size, shape and location of other structures on the lot and neighboring lots. He believes the septic system will most likely meet the 100’ setback. The closest point of the trailer house would be approximately 66’.
Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Cyrus. The current structure, septic system and well were discussed.
Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Cyrus, hearing none Horntvedt proceeded to the Findings of Fact.
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE
Name of Applicant: Steven and Deborah Cyrus Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 19.28.21.040 Variance Application #: 18-08V
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? __Shoreland and Recreational Area ____________________________________________________________________
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
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? __No
Change_____________________________________________________________
6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot
Size_________________________________________________________________ Condition(s): __Mobile home location as per drawing as of this date
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 ( )
October 3, 2018
___________________________________
Date Ken Horntvedt Acting Chair, Board of
Adjustment
Motion made by Levasseur to approve with conditions.
Motion seconded by Head.
All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.
– Consideration of Variance Application #18-09V by 218 Lake Properties LLC: Lots 19 and 20, Wabanica Beaches Subdivision, Section twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West with parcel ID #23.51.00.190. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a structure closer than the required 100’ setback to Wabanica Bay and the required 20’ setback to the Right-of-Way. Wabanica Bay if a Tributary River Segment.
Horntvedt asked Mr. Fitzgerald to come to the table and explain his request.
Mr. Fitzgerald explained that he wants to place a new cabin on the lots as close to the road as possible, in line with the other cabins. Due to lot depth, the new cabin would encroach on the 100’ setback. They are placing a septic system and drilling a new well.
Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Fitzgerald. Road right-of-way setbacks were discussed.
Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Fitzgerald, hearing none Horntvedt proceeded to the Findings of Fact.
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE
Name of Applicant: 218 Lake Properties, LLC Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 23.51.00.190 Variance Application #: 18-09V
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:
2. 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? ___Shoreland Location, Recreational Area
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 ______________________
5. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot Size_________________________
6. 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? _No Change________________________
6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot Size_________________________ Condition(s): __Location of new structure as per submitted drawing. _______________________
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 ( )
October 3, 2018 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt Acting Chair, Board of
Adjustment
Motion made by Levasseur to approve with conditions.
Motions seconded by Marhula.
All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.
With no further business for the Board, Horntvedt entertained a motion to adjourn of the Board of Adjustments. Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head, meeting adjourned. Horntvedt opened the Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Commission – New Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-09CU by Nels Holte: Lot 7, Block 6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One-Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID #19.69.06.070. Applicant is
requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a Commercial Planned Unit Development in a Commercial-Recreation District.
Horntvedt asked Mr. Holte to come to the table and explain his request.
Mr. Holte explained that he would like a Conditional Use to operate a small campground consisting of five (5) lots.
Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Holte. Lot size, Dept. of Health requirements and covenants and restrictions were discussed.
Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Holte, hearing none Horntvedt proceeded to the Findings of Fact.
Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision
Name of Applicant: Nels Holte Date: October 3, 2018
Location/Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID# 19.69.06.070
Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to create a Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting of a seasonal camping/RV park with five full hook-ups.
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? Commercial/Recreational District______________
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? _Meet Minnesota Department of Health Code_____________________
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 ( )
Why or why not? __No 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? ___Existing Road________________________________________
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? __Commercial/Recreational__________________
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? ____Mound system in place__________________________________
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 Water and Sewer_______________________________
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 ( x ) N/A ( )
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 lot already there_____________________________________
The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 3000 sq. ft required per lot. Must meet Minnesota Department of Health standards
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 ( )
October 3, 2018 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt
Acting Chair, Planning Commission
This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.
Motion made by Marhula to approve with conditions.
Motion seconded by Levasseur.
All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 18-10CU by Gary Grove: A tract of land in the NW ¼ of the NW ¼, Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One-Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West with parcel ID #14.29.22.010. 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 commercial business consisting of short-term vacation rental.
Horntvedt asked Mr. Grove and Mrs. Heppner to come to the table and explain their request.
They explained that they would like to rent out the property on AirBnb and VRBO since their long-term rentals are moving out.
Discussion ensued between the Board and Mrs. Heppner/Mr. Grove. Access to the residence and parking were discussed.
Horntvedt stated that there was a letter regarding this Conditional Use permit and read it into the record.
Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Grove and Mrs. Heppner, hearing none Horntvedt proceeded to the Findings of Fact.
Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision
Name of Applicant: Gary Grove Date: October 3, 2018
Location/Legal Description: A 2-acre tract located in the NW ¼ NW ¼, Section Twenty-Nine (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID# 14.29.22.010.
Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of transient short-term rental of an existing structure 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? _Seasonal/ Recreational 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___________________________________________
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x )
Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
13) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? _Existing Road_________________________________________
14) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? ___Seasonal/Recreational________________________________
9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x )
Why or why not? _____________________________________________________
11) 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? ___Existing system_____________________________________
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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? __Existing Well and Sewer ________________________________
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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? __Existing trees_________________________________________
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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? ____As per application___________________________________
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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? __Existing parking______________________________________
The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _Conditional use permit expires upon change of ownership from Gary Grove.
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 ( )
October 3, 2018 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt
Acting Chair, Planning Commission
This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.
Motion made by Head to approve with conditions.
Motion seconded by Marhula.
All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.
With no further items for consideration before the Planning Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn.
Adjournment: M/S/P Head/Marhula, meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of the proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
Josh Stromlund