LAND & WATER
October 5, 2022
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on October 5, 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, and Dave Marhula. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund. Absent from the meeting was Monica Dohmen.
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: September 7, 2022- Motion to approve- Marshall/Dave. All in favor. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.
Planning Commission – Old Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-11CU by Milo Ravndalen: The SE¼SE¼ of Section Twenty (20); the NE¼NE¼ of Section Twenty-nine (29); the NW¼NW¼ of Section Twenty-eight (28); the SW¼SW¼ of Section Twenty-one (21) all within Township One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID#’s 17.20.41.000; 17.29.11.000; 17.28.22.000; 17.21.33.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining, washing, and bituminous material, in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).
Milo Ravndalen was present to discuss this request with the board and to answer any questions. Neighbors Rory and Julie Hodgson had concerns in regards to safety, speed limits, signage, dust control, hours of operations and the crushing operation. County Engineer, Anthony Pirkl, was also present to discuss the road concerns as well as dust control options for the landowner. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.
Name of Applicant: Milo Ravndalen Date: October 5, 2022
Location/Legal Description: The SE¼SE¼ Section 20, NE¼NE¼ of Section 29, NW¼NW ¼ of Section 28, and the SW¼SW¼ of Section 21, all within Township 162N, Range 34W (Chilgren)
Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to allow extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining, washing, crushing, and bituminous material, in a Rural Residential Zoning 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? Aggregate 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 (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? It will affect topography through mining.
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? County Road 56.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Existing adjacent pit
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 (X) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Will be required if installed.
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? Natural vegetation.
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? Via County Road 56.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows:
1. Must maintain dust control.
2. Hours limited to daylight hours.
3. Must follow proper blasting procedures including notification of residents.
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 – Marshall/Ken. All in favor.
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-12CU by Brandon and Alycia Fish: Lot 8, Block 1 of Lukes Estates in Section Twenty-four (24), Township One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID # 19.58.01.080. 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.
Brandon and Alycia Fish were present to discuss their request with the board. This request was first discussed at the September 7th, 2022 meeting but the request had a few deficiencies that the board wanted the applicants to address. The applicants addressed these concerns with new egress windows and routes created/updated in the property. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.
Name of Applicant: Brandon and Alycia Fish Date: October 5, 2022 Location/Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 1, Lukes in Section 24, T. 162N, R. 32W
Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to allow the operation of a short-term transient rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1).
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 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? Meets county’s new application/requirements.
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 on Burr Oak Road
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Residential and commercial area.
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? On sanitary sewer 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? Sewer district and private well.
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 on site only.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows:
1. Parking on site only, no parking on Burr Oak Road.
2. CUP terminates on transfer of title.
3. Hours of operation are as listed on 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 – Wes/Dave. All in favor.
Motion to Close Planning Commission – Open Board of Adjustment- Marshall/Nancy. All in favor. Board of Adjustment – New Business
– Consideration of Variance #22-09V by Michael and Robin Derkacht: A Tract located in the SE¼SW¼ lying Westerly of the South Branch of the Rapid River in Section Seventeen (17), Township One-hundred Fifty-eight (158) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 43.17.23.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.4 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure at less than the required one hundred fifty (150) foot setback from the South Branch of the Rapid River. The South Branch of the Rapid River is a Forested River Segment.
Robin and Michael Derkacht were present to discuss the request with the board. Neighbors Gerald (Jerry) and Iva Balitewicz were present to ask questions in regards the request. The board recognized an email correspondence between an adjoining neighbor across the river and an employee of the LWPO. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.
Name of Applicant: Michael and Robin Derkacht Date: October 5, 2022 Parcel #: 43.17.23.000 Variance Application #: 22-09V
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:
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? New structure no closer to Rapid River than current structure.
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? Replaces existing house/residential.
3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location of current house, well and other considerations.
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Current structure.
5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? It will not/no change.
6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? House replacement.
Condition(s): No closer to Rapid River than 125 feet.
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 ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X) DENIED ( )
Motion to Approve with Conditions – Marshall/Ken. All in favor.
Motion to Adjourn at 8:00 PM- Marshall/ Dave. All in favor.