Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting
7:00 P.M. on April 2, 2025
Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Marshall Nelson, Tom Mio, Nancy Dunnell, and Dave Marhula. Absent were Monica Dohmen 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: Mio/Marhula. All in favor.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 5, 2025 – Motion to approve – Marhula/Marshall. All in favor. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Mio and Horntvedt noted being closer neighbors. Otherwise none. Board of Adjustments – Old Business
– Consideration of Variance Application #25-01V by Newell Glines, Kathleen Glines, Michael Lange, and Stephanie Anderson: Lot 3, Block 1, Wabanica Bay Plat in Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wabanica) – Parcel ID# 23.50.01.030. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the replacement of an existing garage, addition to said garage and house that will not meet the required ten (10) foot lot line setback. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment.
As there was nobody present to represent the Glines family for a second meeting in a row, the Board determined to go through the application as best as possible.
Name of Applicant: Newell & Kathleen Glines, Michael & Stephanie Anderson
Date: April 2, 2025
Parcel #: 23.50.01.030 Variance Application #: 25-01V
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 ( ) NO ( X ) and Why or why not? Additional encroachment to 10’ lot line. Not enough information available.
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 the same.
3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?
YES ( ) NO ( X ) and Why or why not?
Plenty of room to alter the plan.
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?
YES ( ) NO ( X ) and Why or why not?
Landowner created.
5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not?
Remain residential.
6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not?
Current garage location and room to expand without the variance.
Comment: Two opportunities to present to the board and no one was present to explain the reason for the variance.
IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET.
Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.
APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS ( ) DENIED (X )
April 2, 2025 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt
Vice Chair, Planning Commission
Motion to deny by Mio/Marshall. All in favor.
Board of Adjustment – New Business
– Consideration of Variance Application #25-03V by Jason Goulet, Lisa Goulet, Crystal Goulet and Jack Goulet: A tract of land in Section Thirty (30), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West (Angle) – Parcel ID# 02.30.41.031. Applicant is requesting a Variance as required by Section 605.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the split of two contiguous nonconforming lots of record.
Jack Goulet was in attendance 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: Jason Goulet, Lisa Goulet, Michael Goulet, Crystal Goulet, and Jack Goulet
Date: April 2, 2025
Parcel #: 02.30.41.031 Variance Application #: 25-03V
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 development.
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 development.
3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not?
Original plat.
4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not?
Original plat.
5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not?
No change.
5. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations?
YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not?
Original plat.
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 ( ) April 2, 2025 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt
Chair, Board of Adjustment
Motion to approve by Dunnell/Marhula. All in favor.
Motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting: Motion by Marshall/Marhula. All in favor Motion to open the Planning Commission meeting: Motion by Mio/Marshall. All in favor.
– Consideration of Interim Use Permit #25-02IU by 623, LLC (Steven and Amy Olson): West half (½) of the Northeast quarter (¼), of Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.07.12.000. Applicants are 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 Rural Residential Development Zoning District (R2).
Amy Olson was called at her home 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: 623 LLC Date: April 2, 2025
Location/Legal Description: The West Half (1/2) of the North-East Quarter (1/4) of Section Seven (7), Township One-hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper)
Parcel Number: 16.07.12.000
Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Section 401.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation 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? Vacation rental.
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? No change.
4) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change.
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 ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?
6) Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? On site.
7) Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not?
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? No change.
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? Per 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
X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application. X The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number 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:
The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:
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 as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) April 2, 2025 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt
Chair, Planning Commission
– Consideration of Preliminary Plat of Youngs Bay Mancaves by YBMC, LLC: The East 165.00 feet of the West 198.00 feet of Government Lot 3, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West (Angle), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota, except the South 290.00 feet thereof, Parcel ID# 02.25.24.020. Applicant is requesting to create a planned unit development consisting of twelve (12) storage units.
Lake of the Woods County Land and Water Planning Office, Lake of the Woods County Surveyor, and Lake of the Woods County Recorder Comments regarding the
Preliminary Plat of Youngs Bay Mancaves
Gregg was called to discuss the project and a list of items to consider was drawn up as follows. County Surveyor Comments
1. Identify the size and type of found monuments.
2. Purpose of Outlot A? Added to declaration?
3. Is this a 505 plat or a 515?
4. Dedication is for 505 plat not 515.
5. Remove State of Minnesota at end of Tyler’s name.
6. Should compute closure.
Recorder Comments
1. Ultima Bank has a mortgage on both properties. They will need to be added and sign the plats as an interest-holder.
2. In Tyler’s signature block, “State of Minnesota” got added behind his license number. I believe that is actually part of the jurat for the acknowledgment of his signature. Just a simple spacing issue.
3. I would like to see the sheets numbered 1 of 2, 2 of 2 for each plat.
4. Our ordinance states your signature block should identify you as “Zoning Administrator,” not L&W Planning Director.
Land and Water Planning Office Comments
1. In the first paragraph of the Declaration document, it is stated “a planned condominium commercial community.” Should this be simply stated a planned community to reflect the title on the plat drawing and not be confused between a condominium CIC or a planned community CIC. Additionally, the suggested change would be consistent with the reference identified in number 3 below and email correspondence indicating a planned community.
2. In the Declaration document, the definition of Plat references Section 515B.2-110(d), which references a planned community. This reference applies to a Common Interest Community Plat (CIC Plat); CIC Created Before August 1, 2010. It more than likely is a typo and should be 515B.2-1101(d).
3. In the Declaration document, the definition of “Unit” should be removed or modified as these are not Commercial Units. Due to the proposed ownership structure, it would be of a residential nature. Any identified “commercial use” indicated in the Declaration should be removed.
4. In accordance with the Land Use Tables in the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance and due to the residential nature of the units, a Conditional Use Permit will have to be applied for and approved for a residential planned unit development.
5. The requirements of 515B.2-1101 will have to be adhered to.
6. In the Declaration documents, Section 15, first paragraph references Section 515B.1-103(31). This appears to be a typo and should be referencing 515B.1-103(33b)?
A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat with conditions by Marshall/Marhula. All in favor.
– Consideration of Preliminary Plat Baudette Mancaves by GWE, LLC: The East½East½NW¼NE¼, Section Twenty-seven (27), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.27.12.010. Applicant is requesting to create a planned unit development consisting of twelve (12) storage units.
As Gregg was still on the phone, the meeting then shifted to the Preliminary Plat for Baudette Mancaves.
Lake of the Woods County Land and Water Planning Office, Lake of the Woods County Surveyor, and Lake of the Woods County Recorder Comments regarding the
Preliminary Plat of Baudette Mancaves
County Surveyor Comments
1. Are they going to certify the West ¼, South ¼, East ¼ and SE Corner?
2. Why is the East ¼ not a split?
3. Is Lot 13 CE (common element)?
. If this is a 505 plat no access to lots?
Dedication
1. No public ways have been created?
2. The heading says CIC plat but dedication says 505 plat?
. If CIC plat dedication is different.
3. Space after Tyler’s license number 60122 or remove State of Minnesota at end.
4. Identify the size and type of found monuments.
5. Can’t dedicate R/W or easements in CIC plat.
6. Should compute closure.
Recorder Comments
1. Ultima Bank has a mortgage on both properties. They will need to be added and sign the plats as an interest-holder.
2. In Tyler’s signature block, “State of Minnesota” got added behind his license number. I believe that is actually part of the jurat for the acknowledgment of his signature. Just a simple spacing issue.
3. I would like to see the sheets numbered 1 of 2, 2 of 2 for each plat.
4. Is the zoning indication correct for CIC # 5 Baudette Mancaves?
5. Our ordinance states your signature block should identify you as “Zoning Administrator,” not L&W Planning Director.
Land and Water Planning Office Comments
1. In the first paragraph of the Declaration document, it is stated “a planned condominium commercial community.” Should this be simply stated a planned community to reflect the title on the plat drawing and not be confused between a condominium CIC or a planned community CIC. Additionally, the suggested change would be consistent with the reference identified in number 3 below and email correspondence indicating a planned community.
2. In the Declaration document, the definition of Plat references Section 515B.2-110(d), which references a planned community. This reference applies to a Common Interest Community Plat (CIC Plat); CIC Created Before August 1, 2010. It’s more than likely a typo and should be 515B.2-1101(d).
3. In the Declaration document, the definition of “Unit” should be removed or modified as these are not Commercial Units. Due to the proposed ownership structure, it would be of a residential nature. Any identified “commercial use” indicated in the Declaration should be removed.
4. In accordance with the Land Use Tables in the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance and due to the residential nature of the units, a Conditional Use Permit will have to be applied for and approved for a residential planned unit development.
5. The requirements of 515B.2-1101 will have to be adhered to.
6. In the Declaration documents, Section 15, first paragraph references Section 515B.1-103(31). This appears to be a typo and should be referencing 515B.1-103(33b)?
7. On the plat drawing, please identify what the unit boundaries are versus the existing building footprint. This pertains to the unidentified 2 feet.
8. On the plat drawing, all of the dimensions are to the hundredth (2 places after decimal point) with the exception of 2 feet indicated in the detail drawing which does not include a measurement to the hundredth. To be consistent, it should be labeled as 2.00.
A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat with conditions by Mio/Marhula. All in favor.
– SSTS Ordinance Amendment
The Board considered an amendment to the SSTS Ordinance regarding property north of the 49th parallel for septic compliance inspections. The discussion was based on a suggestion from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to require landowners seeking a septic inspection to first need to go in front of the Board of Adjustment to seek permission on a case-by-case basis to be able to perform an inspection without emptying the septic tank. Land and Water Planning would like to provide an administrative process and not involve the Board of Adjustment for every situation. The criteria the Land and Water Planning Office would use are whether there is a road supporting a pump truck to the property in question as well as the property location. Photos will be required to document the inspection was done properly and provide evidence for the office to place in the property file. The Board was ok with the concept.
Motion to accept administrative approval when warranted made by Mio/Marhula. All in favor.
With no further business before the Planning Commission, Marshall made a motion to adjourn and seconded by Mio. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:26 PM.