LAND & WATER
September 4, 2024
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on September 4, 2024
Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Monica Dohmen, Ken Horntvedt, Tom Mio, Dave Marhula, and Nancy Dunnell. Others present were Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund. Marshall Nelson and Wes Johnson were absent.
Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.
Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 7, 2024- Motion to approve –Mio/Dohmen. All in favor. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.
Planning Commission – New Business
– Consideration of Variance #24-04V by Kyle and Fallon Solie: A tract of land located in the NE¼SE¼ lying Northerly of Highway 172 and Easterly of Hooper Creek in Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID# 24.18.41.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a structure at less than the required 100-foot setback from the Hooper Creek. This portion of Hooper Creek is an Agricultural River segment.
Kyle was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.
Name of Applicant: Kyle Solie Date: September 4, 2024 Parcel #: 24.18.41.000 Variance Application #: 24-04V
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? Growth Corridor.
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? Residential.
3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Size and shape of lot.
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Size and shape of lot.
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? Shape and size of lot.
Condition(s): Construction restrictions based on submitted plan on file.
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 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.
APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS ( X ) DENIED ( )
September 4, 2024 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt
Chair, Board of Adjustment
Motion made by Mio to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dunell. All in favor, motion passed as presented.
Motion to close the Board of Adjustment made by Dunnell, 2nd by Dohmen. All in favor, passed. Motion to open Planning Commission made by Mio, 2nd by Marhula. All in favor, passed. 1) Planning Commission – Old Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-03CU by Thomas Flaherty: Lot Six (6), Block One (1), Rivards River Acres, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West (Gudrid) – Parcel ID# 31.56.01.060. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for river access. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment.
Tom was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.
Name of Applicant: Thomas Flaherty Date: September 4, 2024 Location/Legal Description: Lot Six (6), Block One (1), Rivards River Acres
Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for river access.
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? Residential water frontage.
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? Decrease sedimentation.
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? No change to topography.
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 ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Vegetative cover will be implemented and maintained.
7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________
9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rainy River.
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:
1. Erosion control blanket must be installed.
2. Fabric under the rock.
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 ( )
September 4, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt
Chair, Planning Commission
This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance
Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dunnell. All in favor, motion carried.
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-06CU by Timothy & Kristi Bjerk: Lot Eight (8), Block One (1), Lake Shore Village, Section Six (6), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.59.01.080. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of
material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for a rip rap repair project. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
Name of Applicant: Timothy & Kristi Bjerk Date: September 4, 2024 Location/Legal Description: Lot (8), Block One (1), Lakeshore Village Subdivision
Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of repair/replacement of existing rock rip rap.
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? Shoreline repair.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________
9) 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? Eliminate shoreline erosion.
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________
14) 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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Lake of the Woods.
11) 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? ____________________________________________________________________
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________
The specific conditions of approval are as follows:
1. Project does not include the jetty.
2. Must follow DNR requirements for riprap.
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 ( )
September 4, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt
Chair, Planning Commission
This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance
With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by Dohmen. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:59 PM.