November 4, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on November 4, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Reed  McFarland, Ken Horntvedt, and Marshall Nelson (by phone). The following members were absent:  Wes Johnson 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 agenda – M/S/P Horntvedt/McFarlane 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 7, 2020 – M/S/P McFarlane/Horntvedt 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-07CU by Ryan Kerr, Dennis King,  and Sunset Lodge, LLC: Tracts of land in Government Lot 3, Section Two (2),  Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, and Range Thirty-Three (33) West, Parcel IDs# 06.02.14.040, 06.02.14.030 and 06.02.14.020. Applicants are 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 ten (10) cubic yards  of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of  repairing shoreline damage. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Mr. Stromlund explained that the applicants would like to place riprap along their shoreline to protect  from further erosion. The applicants were not present at the meeting but Mr. Stromlund explained  that if the Commission had questions, the applicants would be available for a conference call. The  Planning Commission discussed the application and determined they had enough information that  they did need to call the applicant. 

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Board moved on to the  Findings of Facts. 

Name of Applicant: Ryan Kerr; Dennis King; Sunset Lodge LLC_ Date: Nov. 4, 2020 

Location/Legal Description: The North ½ of the South ½ of the South ½ of Government Lot 3; the  North 115’ of the South 165’ of Government Lot 3; The South ½ of the North ½ of the South ½ of  Government Lot 3, Section Two (2), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty three (33) West – Parcel IDs# 06.02.14.030; 06.12.14.040; 06.02.14.020. 

Project Proposal: Place more than 10 cubic yards of material in the shore impact zone of Lake of the  Woods for the purpose of rip-rap. 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? Shoreline repair and stabilization. 

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? Saves shoreline. 

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? Will not/stops erosion. 

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 ( ) 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? Saves shoreline. 

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: None 

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 to approve as presented: M/S/P Nelson/Horntvedt 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-08V by Kristine Hawkins: Lot 2,  Block 1, Harris Addition, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 19.63.01.020. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow movement of more than ten (10) cubic  yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose  of repairing shoreline damage. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Mr. Stromlund explained that the applicants would like to place riprap along their shoreline to protect  from further erosion. The applicants were not present at the meeting but Mr. Stromlund explained  that if the Commission had questions, the applicants would be available for a conference call. The  Planning Commission discussed the application and determined they had enough information that  they did need to call the applicant. 

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Board moved on to the  Findings of Facts. 

Name of Applicant: __Kristine Hawkins______________ Date: _Nov. 4, 2020 

Location/Legal Description: _Lot 2 Block 1 Harris Addition, Section Nineteen (19), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 19.63.01.020.

Project Proposal: Place more than 10 cubic yards of material in the shore impact zone of Lake of the  Woods for the purpose of rip-rap. 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? Shoreline stabilization. 

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? Saves shoreline. 

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 ( ) 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? Shoreline stabilization. 

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: None 

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 to approve with conditions: M/S/P McFarlane/Horntvedt 

– Consideration of an Extension for Final Plat Submittal of Hooper Creek: A  parcel of land located in Government Lots (One) 1, (Five) 5, and (Six) 6 all within  Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty one (31) West. Applicant is requesting an extension of up to nine (9) months for  submittal of Final Plat in accordance with Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance.  

Mr. Stromlund explained that Hooper Creek Development would like an extension beyond their 9  months to submit their Final Plat. The Planning Commission discussed an extension of 9 months. 

Motion to approve an extension of 9 months: M/S/P McFarlane/Nelson 

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:22 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/McFarlane

October 7, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on October 7, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Dave Marhula, Scott Head, Reed McFarland, Wes Johnson, and Ken Horntvedt. The following members were  absent: Marshall Nelson. 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 agenda – M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 2, 2020 – M/S/P McFarlane/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #20-09V by Louis Taylor: The East 100’ of the part of  the West 400.79’ of Gov Lot 3 lying Northerly of County Road Number 4,  

Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range  Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.17.24.040. Applicant is requesting a  

variance as required by Section 4.1.4 of the Lake of the Woods County  

Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Ordinance, to create a non-conforming lot  without 2 sites for a standard septic system in the shoreland area of Lake of the  Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Mio asked Mr. Taylor to come forward and explain his request. Mr. Taylor explained that he  would like to build a 16’ x 38’ cabin with an incinerator toilet and a greywater holding tank. He  said this would meet all required setbacks. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Taylor. They discussed wetland credits,  restrictions on the property, the proposed holding tank, the high-water event in 2014 and  appropriate use of the property. 

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Board moved on 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: Louis Taylor Date: October 7, 2020 Parcel #: 19.17.24.040 Variance Application #: 20-09V

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 ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? _No sites for sewer/septic____________ 

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted  by the official control?  

YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? _Proposed building in a wetland________ 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _ Wetland_________________________ 

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

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? _ Fill and septic needed_______________ 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _ Wet______________________________ 

Condition(s):  

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 ( ) DENIED (x ) Motion to Deny: M/S/P Head/Johnson 

– Consideration of Variance #20-08V by Peppermint Creek Enterprises: A tract of  land in Government lots 3 and 4, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, and Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID#  19.24.42.030. Applicant is requesting a variance as required by Section 503.5 of  the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to replace an existing structure  with a new structure at less than the 100’ setback to the Rainy River. The Rainy  River is an Agricultural River segment.

Mio asked Mr. Johnson to come forward to explain the request. Mr. Johnson explained that they  would like to replace an existing trailer house on their lot with a 3 bed, 1 bath cabin that does not  meet the setback from the river. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Johnson. Setbacks, cabin dimensions and parking were discussed. 

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Board moved on 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: Peppermint Creek Enterprises Date: October 7, 2020  Parcel #: 19.24.42.030 Variance Application #: 20-08V 

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? _No further encroachment setback on  setback from river – in growth corridor, resort 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? __Resort cabin, no change_____________ 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Lot size and current setback, infrastructure  is tight in area________________________________________________ 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Lot size and current infrastructure______ 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? 

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Will not___________________ 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? 

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Current infrastructure and upgrade of  cabin to HOA specs_________________________________________ 

Condition(s): __Project must be completed by 12/31/2025_____________________________

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 to approve with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Johnson 

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt

September 2, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on September 2, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Dave Marhula, Scott Head, Reed McFarland, Wes Johnson, Ken Horntvedt and Marshall Nelson. 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 agenda – M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 5, 2020 – M/S/P McFarlane/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #20-06V by Dale Cook and Jeanette Rubelle  Towne: The West 250’ of Government Lot 3 North of Highway 11, Section  

Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West,  Parcel – 31.11.42.020. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 501.2.3 of  the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to split an existing non conforming lot of record which will not meet the minimum lot size requirement of  five (5) acres in the shoreland area of Rainy River. The Rainy River is an  

Agricultural river segment. 

Mio asked Mrs. Cook to come forward to explain the request. Mrs. Cook explained that they  would like to acquire the additional land for a mound septic inspection, as well as privacy. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mrs. Cook. Dimensions and trees were discussed. 

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Board moved on 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: Dale and Louise Cook and Jeanette Rubelle Towne Date: September 2, 2020 Parcel #: 31.11.42.020 Variance Application #: 20-06V 

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? _Not going to change property use. Makes  room for further possible septic issues_____________________________ 

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? __Septic sites______________ 

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

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ____Will not/Still Residential__ 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Future septic issues_______ 

Condition(s): _Maximum of 35’ and meet property setbacks. Must be surveyed.____ 

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 to approve with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane 

– Consideration of Variance #20-07V by Derek and Brittny Johnson: Lots 21  and 22, Wabanica Beaches, Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel – 23.51.00.210. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Sections 503.6 and 508 of the Lake of the Woods  Zoning Ordinance to construct a structure less than the required one hundred  (100) foot setback and allow a guest house on a lot that does not meet duplex lot  size requirements within the shoreland area of Wabanica River. The Wabanica  River is a Tributary river segment. 

Mio asked Mr. Johnson to come forward and explain his request. Mr. Johnson explained that he  would like to build a new garage in line with the house and farther from the right-of-way. This  would place it about 80’ from the water.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Johnson. They discussed additional setbacks,  septic and living space in the garage.

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Board moved on 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: Derek Johnson & James Etterman Date: September 2, 2020 Parcel #: 23.51.00.210 Variance Application #: 20-07V 

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? _Waterfront residential___________ 

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? _Setbacks from water, road and well 

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? __Will not/remains residential___ 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? 

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Lot size______________________ 

Condition(s): _Septic updates within two years, septic tank(s) must be at least 50’ from OHW.  Completed by 12/31/2022________________________________________ 

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. 

Motion to approve with conditions: M/S/P Head/Nelson 

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of Adjustment meeting and open the Planning Commission meeting. M/S/P Marhula/Head

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Zone Change #20-01ZC by S & J Real Estate, LLC: Lot 1,  Block 1, Lukes Estates in Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred  

Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.58.01.010.  Applicant is requesting a Zone Change from Section 303 of the Lake of the  

Woods County Zoning Ordinance to change the current zoning from Residential  District (R-1) to a Commercial-Recreation District. 

Mio asked Gary Moeller to come forward and explain the request. He explained that they would  like to place a three-bedroom cabin on this lot to be rented out on a short-term basis. Josh  Stromlund gave a brief description on the historic zoning of this lot. 

Mr. Mio read a letter from the public in to the record. 

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Commission moved  on to the Findings of Facts. 

Lake of the Woods County  

Rezoning 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: S & J Real Estate, LLC Date: September 2, 2020 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Lukes Estates of Section 24, Township 162N, Range 32W  (Wheeler Township) 

Current Zoning Classification: Residential Development (R1) Proposed: Commercial-Recreation Parcel Number(s): 19.58.01.010 Application Number: 20-01ZC 

The Planning Commission shall consider all facts from all sources prior to submitting a  recommendation to the County Board relating to a proposed zone change. Its judgment shall be  based upon, but not limited to the following factors as applicable. 

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Land Use Plan? 

_x__ Yes ___No 

Comments: Resort area, previously commercial, also within the growth corridor 

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning  classification? 

_x__Yes ___No 

Comments: No change from past years, previously residential 

3. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood? 

___Yes _x__ No

Comments: No change 

4. Is there a potential for public health, safety or traffic generation impacts based on  the proposed zone change and how will they be addressed? 

___Yes _x__ No 

Comments: None/no change 

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities  be sufficient to accommodate the proposal? 

___ Yes _x__No 

Comments: No change/none 

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement  of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zoning district? 

___Yes _x__ No 

Comments: No change 

7. Has there been a change in the development in the general area of the property in  questions? 

___ Yes _x__No 

Comments: Same use 

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the  

neighborhood? 

___Yes _x__ No 

Comments: Should improve values – replaced old trailer house with new rental cabin 

Conditions: None 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners adopt the above findings and DENY /  APPROVE the application for a zone change be WITH / WITHOUT conditions. 

_____________________________________ September 2, 2020 Tom Mio Date 

Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  Motion to approve as presented: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-06CU by Richard Schram: A  tract in Government Lot 2, Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#19.65.00.080. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the applicant to move more than ten  (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods  for the purpose of repairing shoreline damage. Lake of the Woods is a General  Development Lake. 

Mr. Schram was not present, so Josh Stromlund explained the request. Mr. Schram would  like to complete the shoreline protection project started in 2014 from the extreme ordinary  high-water event. 

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Commission moved  on to the Findings of Facts. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Richard and Lynn Schram_____ Date: September 2, 2020__ 

Location/Legal Description: A tract in Gov. Lot 2, Section 7, Township 162 North, Range 32  West – Parcel ID #19.65.00.080 

Project Proposal: Place more than 10 cubic yards of material in the shore impact zone of Lake of  the Woods for the purpose of rip-rap. 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? __Shoreline protection____________________________________ 

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? ___Shoreline protection___________________________________ 

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? __Will not_____________________________________________ 

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____________________________________________

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? ___Reason for project_____________________________________ 

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? __Reason for project_______________________________________ 

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: _None______________________________ 

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 ( ) 

September 2, 2020  

____________________________________ 

 Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  Motion to approve as presented: Horntvedt/Marhula 

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:48 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head

August 5, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on August 5, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Dave Marhula, Scott Head, Reed McFarland, Wes Johnson and Ken Horntvedt. Members absent: Marshall  Nelson. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund, Nathaniel and  Peter Brown. 

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 1, 2020 – M/S/P McFarlane/Horntvedt 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #20-04V by Larry Scharmer: Lot 3, Block 1, Lukes Estates in Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162)  

North, Range Thirty-two (32) West. Applicant is requesting a variance from  

Section 501.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the  creation of two nonconforming lots which do not meet the minimum one (1) acre  lot size requirements in a Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 

Mio asked for the representative of Mr. Scharmer to come forward and explain the request. Joe  LaValla explained that he owns one lot and Mr. Scharmer owns two and would like to split one  of his lots. Mr. Scharmer would retain 55’ and Mr. LaValla would receive 45’. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. LaValla and the Board. They discussed Mr. LaValla’s future  building plans and lot sizes. 

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Board moved on 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: Larry Scharmer Date: August 5, 2020 Parcel #: 19.58.01.030 Variance Application #: 20-04V

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? _Changes will create larger lots________ 

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? _Still residential___________________ 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Platted lot sizes__________________ 

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

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Will not______________________ 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ___Larger lots for building_______ 

Condition(s): ____Maintain 10’ setback______________________________ 

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 ( )  August 5, 2020 

 Date Tom Mio Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to approve with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt 

– Consideration of Variance #20-05V by William and Karen Novacek: The  NE¼SW¼; Less the Westerly One Hundred Sixty-five (165) feet in Section  Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a structure less 

than the required one hundred (100) foot setback from the Winter Road River.  The Winter Road River is a Tributary River segment. 

Mio asked Mr. Novacek to come forward and explain his request. Mr. Novacek explained how  long the structure has been there and that all his current utilities are where the current house is  located. He will upgrade his current septic system within the required upgrade period.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Novacek. They discussed historic setbacks,  erosion/sloughing, possibility of moving new house 10’ to the east. 

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Board moved on 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: William Novacek Date: August 5, 2020 Parcel #: 24.20.31.000 Variance Application #: 20-05V 

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? __Residential waterfront________ 

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? _Remains residential___________ 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Original house site and shoreland erosion 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Erosion and original site before newer  100’ setback_____________________________________________________ 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? 

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Will not_____________________ 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? 

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Remains the same___________ 

Condition(s): ____Move new house 10’ East___________________________________

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 ( ) 

 August 5, 2020  

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to approve with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane 

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of Adjustment meeting and open the Planning Commission meeting. M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #20-05CU by JRF  Properties, LLC: Lots 1-6, Block 2, Marina Drive Estates, Section Thirty-six  (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel IDs# 19.70.02.010 through  19.70.02.060. 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  operation of a commercial business consisting of a seasonal camping area/RV  Park in a Commercial-Recreation District. The proposed project area is non shoreland. 

Mio asked Mr. Fish to come forward and explain his request. Mr. Fish explained that he would  like to expand the campground he was approved for a few years ago. He would like to expand  the number of sites and increase the green area. 

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Fish. Number of units, Department of  Health regulations, shower houses, rental plans and visual barriers were discussed. 

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Commission moved  on to the Findings of Facts. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: JRF Properties, LLC Date: August 5, 2020 

Location/Legal Description: Lots 1-6, Block 2, Marina Drive Estates, Section Thirty-six (36),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Lake of the Woods  County, Minnesota – Parcel IDs 19.70.02.010 through 19.70.02.060.

Project Proposal: To allow the operation of a commercial business consisting of a seasonal  camping area/RV Park in a Commercial-Recreation 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? _Resort/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? _Must meet state 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? __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? __State Hwy 172 plus one private and County Road_____________ 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __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? _Will be brought up to standards____________________________ 

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? __Either sewer system or septic and will provide an additional 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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Planting trees on North and East____________________________ 

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? _Small sign on County Road_________________________________ 

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? _State Hwy/County and Private Roads______________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _MDH codes and requirements be followed_ 

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 ( ) 

August 5, 2020 _____________________________________  Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  Motion to approve with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Head 

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P McFarlane/Johnson

July 1, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on July 1, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Dave Marhula, Scott Head, Reed McFarland, Marshall Nelson, Wes Johnson and Ken Horntvedt. Others present  were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund, Nathaniel and Peter Brown. 

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 6, 2020 – M/S/P Marhula/Nelson 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #20-03V by Dennis Sobolik: Lot 2, Block 1, Boundary  Commission Plat No. 1 in Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West. Applicant is requesting a variance from  Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow an  addition that will not meet the required seventy-five (75) foot setback from Lake of  the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Mio ask if Mr. Sobolik was present. Kelly Plaine introduced himself and indicated he was the  representative for Mr. Sobolik. Mio ask Plaine to come to the table and explain the proposal. 

Plaine indicated he was the son-in-law of Sobolik and they are looking at a number of upgrades  on the property included screening in the deck on the lakeside of the cabin. Sobolik is 88 years  old and built the cabin in 1964. We thought it would be good for him, as he is not as mobile as he  used to be, to screen in the deck so he can enjoy time out there with his puzzles. It would be a  nice addition to the cabin and Sobolik in his remaining years. 

Questions and discussion ensued between the Board and Plaine regarding construction of the  screen porch. Upon completion of the discussion, Mio asked if there were any comments from  the floor. 

Mio recognized Peter Brown. Brown indicated he was neutral on this request; however, he  applied for the same request and his was denied. If this variance is approved, he wants a  reconsideration of his request. 

The Board explained that each request is different and on its own merits. He has every right to  apply again if he so chooses. 

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Board moved on 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: Dennis Sobolik Date: July 1, 2020 Parcel #: 14.53.01.020 Variance Application #: 20-03V 

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? Residential/lakeshore property. 

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? Existing footprint and eroding shoreline. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Eroding shoreline and existing property 5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Will not, no change. 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Economics not part of request. 

Condition(s):  

1) Must stay within exact footprint of existing deck. 

2) Completed by 12/31/20. 

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 ( )

July 1, 2020 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to approve with conditions: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:15pm.  Adjournment: M/S/P McFarlane/Marhula

June 3, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 3, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Dave Marhula, Scott Head, Reed McFarland, Marshall Nelson, Wes Johnson and Ken Horntvedt. 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 agenda – M/S/P Nelson/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 6, 2020 

M/S/P Hortnvedt/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-04CU by Shawn Wendler & Shawna  Brasgalla: The North 450 feet of the East 500 feet of the NE¼ of the NE¼, Section  Twenty-six (26), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West. Applicant is requesting to operate a small engine repair and maintenance shop in a  Rural-Residential (R-2) District. 

Mr. Wendler came forward to explain his request. He explained that he would like to do small  engine repair including marine, atv, automotive/oil changes/tune ups, etc. He is hoping to expand  in the future if all goes well.  

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Wendler. Number of vehicles, slightly  appearance and possible increases in shed/workspace were discussed.  

Mr. Mio read a letter in favor of the request into the record. 

With no further discussion the Commission moved on to the Findings of Facts.  

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Shawn Wendler_____________________ Date: June 3, 2020___________ 

Location/Legal Description: The North 450 feet of the East 500 feet of the NE1/4 of the NE1/4,  Section 26, Township 161 North, Range 32 West – Parcel ID #23.26.11.01 

Project Proposal: Operate a small engine repair and maintenance shop in a Rural-Residential (R 2) 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? _Further business________________________________________ 

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? __County Rd #6_________________________________________ 

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Used oil, antifreeze, etc. will be contained. No bathroom facilities__ 

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 ( x ) 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? __One 2’ x 6’on building proposed___________________________ 

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? _Use County Rd 6 – no change needed________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _CUP stays with Shawn Wendler_________ 

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 ( ) 

_____________________________________ 

Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  

Motion to approve with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Nelson 

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:25pm.  Adjournment: M/S/P Nelson/McFarlane

May 6, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on May 6, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Dave Marhula, Scott Head, Tom Mio and Ken Horntvedt. Reed McFarland attended via conference call. 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 agenda – M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 4, 2020 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – Old Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-03CU by J & L Hennum, Inc.: The  Vacated Plat of Jesme’s Addition to Riverview in Section Twenty-four (24), Township  One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit development  consisting of recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation  Zoning District. 

Greg Hennum attended the meeting by conference call and explained the request for a seasonal  campground.  

Mr. Mio opened up the meeting to questions from the board. Discussion then ensued between the  board and Mr. Hennum. Members of the board expressed concern over the placement of the  fence on the property line. Discussion then turned to the proposed dump station. 

Mio then opened the meeting up to public comment. Multiple letters from the public were read  into the record.  

Discussion between Mr. Hennum and the Commission ensued.  

Mr. Marhula made a motion to move on to the Findings of Facts. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: __J&L Hennum Inc_________________________ Date: _May 6, 2020_____ 

Location/Legal Description: The Vacated Plat of Jesme’s Addition to Riverview Section Twenty four (24), Township One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#:  19.51.00.010; 19.51.00.070; 19.51.00.180

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance operate Commercial Planned Unit Development in a Commercial Recreation 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? In a commercial district. 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES (X) NO  

( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Public sewer and private water and based upon density calculation. 

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 (X) NO  ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Larger trees to remain and will not 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? Campsite lot parking – easy county road access. 

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? Public sewer. 

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 public sewer 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 (X) NO  ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Eight (8) foot high fence/ground up. 

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? On site plan. 

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 camp sites. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) Fence to be off property line adequate for maintenance 

2) Must meet new density level (23) 

3) Approved for year-round use 

4) Must meet MDH requirements and approval

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 ( ) 

_____________________________________ 

Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.    

Motion to Approve the request with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Head 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Final Plat Common Interest Community #4 A Planned  Community Eagle Ridge First Supplement: a 2.26-acre tract in the SE corner of  Government Lot Eight (8), Section One (1), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167)  North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Oak Island). Applicant is requesting to create six  (6) tracts to accompany the Sportsman’s Eagle Ridge Common Interest Community as  lots for storage. 

Greg Hennum then explained the request. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Hennum.  

Mr. Stromlund commented that the answers to the boards questions were answered by the  declarations. 

Motion to approve: M/S/P Mcfarlane/Marhula 

– Consideration of Preliminary Plat of Hooper Creek: A parcel of land located in  Government Lots (One) 1, (Five) 5, and (Six) 6 all within Section Eighteen (18),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West. Applicant is  requesting to create sixteen (16) tracts for a residential development. 

Jon Waibel then explained the request. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Waibel.  

Mr. Stromlund discussed the impacts of wetland on the proposed plat and the construction of the  road. He stated that the applicant was proposing a road that exceeded the requirements of the  ordinance. 

Mio then opened the meeting up to public comment. Multiple letters from the public were read  into the record. 

Motion to approve: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:02pm.  Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt

March 4, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on March 4, 2020 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Marshall  Nelson, Dave Marhula, Scott Head and Wes Johnson. Members absent: Tom Mio and Reed  McFarlane 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 agenda – M/S/P Head/Nelson 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 5, 2020 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – Old Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-02CU by Powder River  Development Services, LLC: the NE4NE4 Less Deeded; NW4NE4, Section  Nine (9), Range One Hundred Fifty-eight (158) North, Range Thirty-one (31)  West – Parcel ID#: 43.09.11.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use  Permit as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to operate a commercial communications tower in a Rural Residential  District (R2). 

Brandon Peterson of Powder River Development came forward opted to speak after listening to  public comments.  

Mr. Horntvedt opened up the meeting to public comments. Members of the public expressed  opposition to the request. They expressed concern over placement of the tower, property value  and health concerns. Alternate tower sites were proposed by the public. Multiple letters from the  public were read into the record in opposition to the request. One letter of support from AT&T  was read in to the record. 

Discussion between Mr. Peterson, the public and the Commission ensued. They discussed the  placement of the tower, FCC regulations 

Mr. Horntvedt moved on to the Findings of Facts. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: __AT&T; Powder River Development Services LLC_____ Date: _March  4, 2020_____

Location/Legal Description: The NE ¼ NE ¼ Less Deeded; NW ¼ NE ¼, Section Nine (9), Range One Hundred Fifty-eight (158) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#:  43.09.11.000_______________ 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance operate a communications tower 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? _Meets requirements______________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Improve communications__________________________________ 

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? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Fencing and 100’ x 100’ area______________________________ 

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? _signage required_________________________________________ 

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: Must meet FCC guidelines for  communication towers, must meet FAA guidelines for communications towers_________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) 

_____________________________________ 

Ken Horntvedt 

Acting Chair, Planning Commission

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. Motion to Approve the request with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Head 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. 

– Consideration of Preliminary Plat Common Interest Community #4 A Planned  Community Eagle Ridge First Supplement: a 2.26-acre tract in the SE corner of  Government Lot Eight (8), Section One (1), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167)  North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Oak Island). Applicant is requesting to create six  tracts to accompany the Sportsman’s Eagle Ridge Common Interest Community as lots  for storage. 

Mr. Stromlund commented on the issues with this plat from the last meeting. He stated that the  issues have been addressed by the applicant and their surveyor.  

Motion to Approve: M/S/P Nelson/Johnson 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-03CU by J & L Hennum, Inc.: The  Vacated Plat of Jesme’s Addition to Riverview in Section Twenty-four (24), Township  One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit development  consisting of recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation  Zoning District. 

The applicant submitted a letter to postpone his application until next month, the letter was read  into the record. 

Motion to table: M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Motion to close Planning Commission meeting 

Motion to open Board of Adjustment meeting 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #20-02V by Mike and Bonny Edin: Lots 5 and 6, Birch  Drive, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range  Thirty-four (34)W, Parcel ID# 02.52.01.050. Applicant is requesting a variance from  Section 501.2.2 and 605 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to split two  contiguous non-conforming lots of record and allow the impervious surface to exceed  25% on Lot 5. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Mr. & Mrs. Edin came forward to explain their request. They would like to split his 200’ x 200’  into two 100’ x 200’ lots. He explained that there are two residences on this lot and that they  have a buyer interested in one of the lots.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and the Edins. Structures, septic systems and setbacks  were discussed. Mr. Stromlund explained the impervious surface coverage and why a variance is  required.

Hearing no more discussion on the variance, Horntvedt moved on 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: Michael and Bonny Edin Date: March 4, 2020 Parcel #: 02.52.01.050 Variance Application #: 20-02V 

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? _Existing parcels___________________ 

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 sizes__________________________ 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Original plats and existing buildings___ 

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? _Original plat, existing buildings______ 

Condition(s):  

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 ( )

___3-4-2020_________________ _____________________________  Date Ken Horntvedt 

Acting Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to Approve as presented: Marhula/Nelson 

With no further business, Horntvedt entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:19pm.  Adjournment: M/S/P Head/Nelson

February 5, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on February 5, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Marshall Nelson,  Dave Marhula, Scott Head, Wes Johnson and Ken Horntvedt. Members absent: Reed McFarlane 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 table Preliminary Plat until the next meeting, removing it from today’s agenda Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 8, 2020 

M/S/P Horntvedt/Nelson 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-02CU by Powder River  Development Services, LLC: the NE4NE4 Less Deeded; NW4NE4, Section  Nine (9), Range One Hundred Fifty-eight (158) North, Range Thirty-one (31)  West – Parcel ID#: 43.09.11.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use  Permit as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to operate a commercial communications tower in a Rural Residential  District (R2). 

Blair Ransom of Powder River Development came forward to explain the request. The request is  to place a cell tower on Tom LeVasseur’s property. He explained that this is a part of nationwide  effort to place cell towers to aid in first responders.  

Discussion between Mr. Ransom and the Commission ensued. They discussed the height of the  tower, guyed wires, lights and placement.  

Mr. Mio opened up the meeting to public comments. Members of the public expressed  opposition to the request. They expressed concern over placement of the tower, property value  and health concerns. Alternate tower sites were proposed by the public. Two letters from the  public were read into the record in opposition to the request.  

Motion to Table the request: M/S/P Marhula/Nelson 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. 

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Adjournment: M/S/P Nelson/Horntvedt

January 8, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on January 8, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Marshall Nelson,  Dave Marhula, Reed McFarlane, Wes Johnson and Ken Horntvedt. Members absent: Scott Head 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 agenda – M/S/P Horntvedt/Nelson 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 6, 2019 

M/S/P McFarlane/Johnson 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #20-01V by Ballard’s Resort Inc: The South 75 feet of  Lot 8, and the North 33 feet of Lot 7, Riverview Plat, Section Twenty-four (24),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, and Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.50.00.070. Applicant is requesting a variance as required by  Section 1012 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to replace an  existing structure with a new structure that will exceed the allowable density  within the shoreland area of the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an Agricultural  River segment. 

Gary Moeller came forward to explain the request. Mr. Moeller explained that they would like to  replace the current structure with a 12 unit complex: one structure with twelve, 1 bedroom units.  They would be adding 18 beds to their resort. They plan to do this project in phases, but are  seeking permission for the entire improvement now. Discussion ensued between the Board and  Mr. Moeller. Common area, cooking facilities, number of stories and density were discussed. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further discussion. Hearing none, Mio moved on 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: Ballard’s Resort, Inc. Date: January 8, 2020 Parcel #: 19.50.00.070 Variance Application #: 20-01V 

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_______________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 

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? ________Resort area_____________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _________Shape and size of lot_____________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ____Shape and size of lot________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? 

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ___Will not. Remains resort area____________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? 

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ___Update to current standards for ADA etc. Replacement  of an old building_________________________________________________________________ 

Condition(s): __Plan completed by 12/31/2025, Setback may not exceed alignment with Sportsman’s  Villas___________________________________________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) 

 January 8, 2020 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion to approve with conditions: McFarlane. 

Seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

Mio asked for motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting. M/S/P McFarlane/Nelson Mio asked for a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting. M/S/P McFarlane/Marhula Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-01CU by S & J Real Estate,  LLC: Government Lot Six (6), Section Thirty-six (36), Range One Hundred  Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 06.36.44.000.  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 commercial  business consisting of a short-term transient rental in a Rural Residential District  (R2). 

Mr. Moeller also explained this request. They currently use the Island for shore lunches during  the summer and would now like to rent it overnight. He explained that they would like to operate  a short-term rental on Kirk Island, for 7 or more days at a time. They only plan to rent in June,  July and August. He explained that someone from the business is usually out there every day  during those months so they will be checking in on the renters while they are out there.  Discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Moeller. Septic system, number of  bedrooms, and the neighboring Special Protection parcel were discussed. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further discussion. Hearing none, Mio moved on to the  Findings of Facts.  

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: S & J Real Estate, LLC Date: January 8, 2020 

Location/Legal Description: Government Lot six (6). Section Thirty-six (36), Range One Hundred  Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 06.36.44.000. 

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 short-term transient rental 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? ___Resort/recreation 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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _____With 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? ___Will not change_______________________________________ 

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___________________________________________ 

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 ( ) 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? ___Resort 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? ___With conditions_____________________________________ 

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with  Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___No change_______________________________________ 

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___With 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? __In place/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 ( ) 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: __Septic inspection and must meet standards,  CUP stays with current owner, must meet MDH standards that apply_______________________ 

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 ( ) 

January 8, 2020  

 _________________________________ 

 Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  Motion to Approve with Conditions: McFarlane 

Motion to second: Marhula 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. 

Motion to keep officers the same. M/S/P Nelson/Johnson 

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt 

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.