May 2, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on May 2, 2018 

Chairman Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Steve  Levasseur, Scott Head, Gerald Levasseur, Reed McFarlane and Dave Marhula. Members absent:  Ken Horntvedt, and Ed Arnesen. Others present were: Land & Water Planning Director, Josh  Stromlund 

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P McFarlane/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 4, 2018 

M/S/P G. S. Levasseur/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

  • Marhula indicated that he would abstain from the vote regarding Conditional Use #18- 08CU 

Planning Commission: 

  • New Business 
  • Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-02CU by Michael  Gamache: The S½SW ¼ of Section 33, Township 161 North, Range 31 West (Baudette),  Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel Number 24.33.33.000. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to allow the movement of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of  material to expand the clay pad and to stockpile clay, topsoil, granite, rock, sand and  gravel (earthen material) within the shoreland area of Kelly Creek while maintaining a  buffer. Also, the 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 renting storage containers and parking in a Rural Residential (R2)  Zoning District. 

Mio asked Mr. Gamache to come to the table and explain his request. 

Mr. Gamache explained that he would like to expand a pad currently on the property, stockpile  material on his pad and place storage containers on the property and rent them out. He explained  that parking is intended to be for large equipment (semi-trailers) that is in the area for large  projects.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Gamache. Buffers and drainage were discussed. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Gamache, hearing none Mio  proceeded to the Findings of Fact. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: _Michael Gamache Date: May 2, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: The South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section Thirty-three  (33), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31)  

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Sections 902 and 401-C of the Lake  of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to expand clay pad, stockpile earthen  materials within the shoreland are of Kelly Creek and rent storage containers and parking spaces.  

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? Allowing some commercial development. 

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

Why or why not? Drainage and parking issues addressed. 

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? Addressed in conditions. 

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? Also addressed in conditions. 

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? In conditions. 

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? In conditions. 

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? 

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Adjacent to County Road. 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Agricultural. 

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? In conditions. 

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? Off County Road and parking on pad. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 1) Maintain 100’ buffer to Kelly Creek. 2)  Any area within the 100’ buffer needs to be sloped to a minimum of 4 to 1 and seeded with  perennial grasses. 3) Signage limited to one 8’x8’. 4) Existing drainage must be maintained.  

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 made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions.

Motion seconded by S. Lavasseur. 

All in favor, motion passed.  

  • Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-03CU by Grant &  Savanna Slick: A tract of land in Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred  Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) (Baudette), Lake of the Woods County,  Minnesota – parcel ID# 24.29.22.021. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit,  as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to  allow the operation of a commercial business consisting of transient short-term rental of  an existing structure within the shoreland area of the Winter Road River and in a Rural  Residential District (R2). The Winter Road River is a tributary river segment. 

Mio asked Mr. and Mrs. Slick to come to the table and explain their request. Mr. Slick explained that they would like to rent out their property as a short-term vacation rental.  Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. and Mrs. Slick. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. and Mrs. Slick, hearing none Mio  proceeded to the Findings of Fact.  

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Grant and Savanna Slick Date: May 2, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) 

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? Existing residential. 

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? No new access needed, access via Co Rd. 

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Existing and vacation rental. 

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? In conditions. 

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? Not affected. 

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? In conditions. 

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? No change. 

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? Not required/wooded lot. 

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 compliance inspection.  

2) Apply for State and Fed. ID Tax numbers and collect and pay lodging taxes.  3) CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property. 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( x ) Denied ( ) 

Motion made by S. Lavasseur to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by McFarlane. 

All in favor, Marhula abstained, motion passed.  

With no further items for consideration before the Planning Commission, Mio entertained a  motion to adjourn. 

Adjournment: 

M/S/P Head/McFarlane, meeting adjourned at 8:01 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

April 4, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on April 4, 2018 

Chairman Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Steve  Levasseur, Ken Horntvedt, Scott Head, Gerald Levasseur and Dave Marhula. Members absent:  Reed McFarlane and Ed Arnesen. Others present were: Land & Water Planning Director, Josh  Stromlund 

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 4, 2017 

M/S/P G. Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment: 

New Business 

– Consideration of a Variance Application 18-01V by MLK Holding Company, Inc.  (Mike Kinsella, Boarder View Lodge): A 5.92-acre tract in Govt. Lot 3 of Section  Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West (Wheeler). Parcel ID#19.24.41.010. Applicant is requesting a variance from section  503.5 and 603 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant  to replace an existing non-conforming platform with the same dimensions and at a setback  of forty-two (42) feet from the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River  Segment. 

Mio asked Mr. Kinsella to come to the table and explain the request the request. 

Kinsella explained that his request was to make the platform smaller than the previous  platform that was there and to remove a raised area of the platform that has been a safety  hazard to the guests of the resort. 

Discussion ensured between the Board and Mr. Kinsella. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Kinsella, hearing none Mio  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 Mike Kinsella of Border View Lodge Date: April 4, 2018

Applicant:  

Parcel #: 19.24.41.010 Variance Application #: 18-01V 

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?  

Resort area, replacement of existing deck 

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?  

River frontage and setback (historical) 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not?  

See #3 

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?  

Aesthetics, Safety 

Condition(s): 

1. Maintain original size of platform or smaller. 

2. Complete by 12/31/2018 

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 made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Horntvedt. 

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn of the Board of  Adjustments. 

Adjournment:  

M/S/P G. Levasseur / Head, meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. 

Mio then entertained a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting.  Motion made by Marhula to open the Planning Commission meeting. 

The motion was seconded by Head. All in favor, motion passed. 

Planning Commission: 

  • New Business 
  • Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Application 18-01CU by Rollin and Julie  Bergman: The North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (N½ of  NE¼NE¼) of Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North,  Range Thirty-four (34) West (Lakewood) of the Fifth Principal Meridian in Minnesota,  according to the United States Government Survey thereof. Parcel ID# 14.25.11.000.  Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a commercial  business consisting of transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Rural  Residential District (R2). 

Mio asked Mr. Bergman to come to the table and explain the request the request. 

Discussion ensured between the Board and Mr. Bergman regarding concerns the board had  with the property. 

Mio stated that there was a letter regarding the property and read the letter into the record. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Rollin, hearing none Mio  proceeded to the Findings of Fact. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Rollin and Julie Bergman Date: April 4, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: The North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter  (N½ of NE¼NE¼) of Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, 

Range Thirty-four (34) West (Lakewood) of the Fifth Principal Meridian in Minnesota, according  to the United States Government Survey thereof. Parcel ID# 14.25.11.000. 

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? Vacation renal area. 

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? On existing county road, driveway exists. 

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? Septic exists.

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? Already exist. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Not 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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Described in application. 

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? Existing parking available. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __________________________________ 

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 (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) 

Motion made by Head to approve the request as presented. 

Motion seconded by S. Levasseur. 

With no further items for consideration before the Planning Commission, Mio entertained a  motion to adjourn.

Adjournment: 

M/S/P Horntvedt/S. Levasseur, meeting adjourned at 7:30 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