February 7, 2024

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

February 7, 2024 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Monica Dohmen, Ken  Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Nancy Dunnell, and Marshall Nelson. Others present were Land and Water Planning Director  Josh Stromlund. Wes Johnson was absent. 

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Dohmen. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 3, 2024- Motion to approve – Marhula/Nelson. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Comission – New Business 

  • Consideration of Interim Use Permit #24-02IU by Walleye Empire, LLC: A parcel of land lying in the  Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4 SW1/4), Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.25.33.020. Applicant is requesting an Interim  Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short term vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). 

Tom Harig was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed  the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Walleye Empire, LLC Date: February 7, 2024 Location/Legal Description: See Attached Parcel Number: 19.25.33.022 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential (R1) Zoning 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? Development corridor. 
  2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This includes the following  items: 
    • Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • Fire extinguisher(s) 
    • Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows 
    • Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? See application. 
  3. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural residential and recreation. 
  4. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Private drive off Hwy 172 NW. 
  5. Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the  increased traffic is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Remain the same.
  6. Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Plenty of room onsite. 
  7. Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Adequate vegetation. 
  8. 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 (X) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? No signage needed. 
  9. What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? See conditions. 
  10. Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? See application.  
  11. Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? See application.  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):  The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or transfer of the property, whichever occurs first. 

X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application. X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

X A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. 

X No on street parking is allowed. 

X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 

Additional Conditions are as follows:  

  1. Maximum of 3 people per Winter Agreement until upgraded sewer system. 
  2. Maximum of 9 people once sewer system is upgraded. 
  3. Maximum occupancy limited to septic system design. 
  4. Septic system upgraded by December 31, 2025. 

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 ( ) 

 February 7, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Nelson to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Marhula. All in favor, motion  carried. 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by Dunnell. All  in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:31 PM.

January 3, 2024

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

January 3, 2024 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Monica Dohmen,  Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Nancy Dunnell, Marshall Nelson and Wes Johnson. 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 – Mio/Dohmen. All in favor. 

Election of Chair: Dohmen nominated Ken Horntvedt, Seconded by Dunnell. Motion passed. Election of Vice Chair: Mio nominated Marshall Nelson. Seconded by Marhula. Motion passed. Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 6, 2023- Motion to approve – Marhula/Johnson. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

  • Consideration of Variance #24-01V by Leroy Howard: Lot 3 and the West Forty-five (45) feet of  Lot 4, Block 2, Dawley Estates in Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North,  Range Thirty (30) West – Parcel ID# 31.53.02.030. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section  503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct a garage at less than the required  one hundred (100) foot setback from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of the Rainy River and  less than the required fifty (50) foot setback from the right-of-way of State Highway 11. The Rainy  River is an Agricultural River Segment. 

Leroy Howard was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The  board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Leroy Howard Date: January 3, 2024 Parcel #: 31.53.02.030 Variance Application #: 24-01V 

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? Rural residential area. 
  2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official control? 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change. 
  3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 
  4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 
  5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change.
  6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 

Condition(s): None. 

IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE HAVE BEEN  MET. 

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of Adjustment.  This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED (X) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS ( ) DENIED ( ) 

 January 3, 2024 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to Approve as submitted – Marhula/Johnson. All in favor.  

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting – Nelson/Marhula. All in favor.  

Motion to open the Planning Commission – Mio/Dohmen. All in favor.  

Planning Commission – New Business 

  • Consideration of Interim Use Permit #24-01IU by Daniel Klis: Lot 2, Block 1, East Pine Creek,  according to the recorded plat thereof, in Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 02.51.01.020. Applicant is requesting an Interim  Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a  short-term vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). This portion of Pine Creek is  considered Lake of the Woods, a General Development Lake. 

Richard McKeever from Young’s Bay Resort was present at the meeting representing Daniel Klis to  discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the information in the  application. Five letters of correspondence regarding this application were presented for the record.  

Letters received were from Ralph and Tracy Gardner, Tim Murray, Todd Leake, Rick Finnie and Lance  Hapka. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Daniel Klis Date: January 3, 2024 Location/Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, East Pine Creek Plat Parcel Number: 02.51.01.020 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential Zoning District (R1). 

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Resort and recreation area. 
  2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This includes the following  items: 
    • Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms
    • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • Fire extinguisher(s) 
    • Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows 
    • Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Per application. 
  3. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural residential. 
  4. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Existing Road. 
  5. Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the  increased traffic is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No more than full time residence. 
  6. Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Onsite. 
  7. Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Nothing needed. 
  8. 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? ____________________________________________________________________________ 
  9. What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? 6 occupants. 
  10. Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Per application. 
  11. Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Per application. Reasonable in a residential area. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):  The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or transfer of the property, whichever occurs first. 

The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application.

The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application.

The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. 

No on street parking is allowed. 

If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 

Additional Conditions 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 ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) 

 January 3, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Nelson to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dohmen. All in favor,  motion carried. 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Marhula made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Dunnell. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:33 PM.