Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting  7:00 P.M. on April 6, 2022  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 2, 2021- Motion to approve- Dave/Wes. All in favor.    

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None  

Board of Adjustment: No New Business  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-06CU by Twin Island Sleepers:  Government Lot Three (3) & Government Lot Four (4) in Section Three (3), Township  One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID#  17.03.21.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section  401.C and Section 402.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, for the  storage of more than five (5) fish houses and commercial winter ice fishing equipment, in  a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).  

Denton Rose was present to discuss the request. He has most of his fish houses presently stored  on site but would like to move them more to the east once a new culvert get placed this summer.  He would like to put some gravel down and would like to place two signs on the property. The  original application only listed 25 houses, but applicant said he would like to change that to up to  100 houses due to the popularity of the wheel houses. The board indicated that if the applicant  wanted to allow them to stay in those houses over the summer that would need to be permitted  separately as a campground. The applicant indicated that he would want a 5 acre pad to store the  houses and would keep the access points gated with a code padlock. The board also  acknowledged receipt of a correspondence with a neighboring property owner who had questions  that got answered by the Land and Water Planning Office staff. With no other members of the  public present the board moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

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? Out of view fish house storage  

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 ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Remove some vegetative cover only  

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? Adjacent to County Road 11  

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses?  

 YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District 

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? Vegetative to road and to the east; Every access to be gated  

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? Requesting two (2) 4’x8’ signs 

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? No parking on site needed 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1.) Limited to one-hundred (100) Fish house units – can include wheel houses 

2.) No habitation  

3.) Must maintain fifty (50) foot natural vegetative buffer beyond the road right of way and  on east side of the property 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:  

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( X ) Denied ( ) Motion to approve with conditions – Dave/Wes. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-07CU by The Guide Shack: Part of  Government Lot five (5) being part of Outlot A of Brush Island according to the plat  thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder. – Parcel ID# 03.51.50.014 in Section  Twenty-nine (29), Township One-Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-three  (33) West. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C  of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial use of the  property consisting of a short-term transient rental property, in a Rural Residential  Zoning District (R2). Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.  

Bruce Baumgartner and Andy Lundbohm were present to discuss the request. They are fishing  guides at the Northwest Angle and would like a location to rent to their customers as well as others who have their own boats, or snowmobiles/winter houses for year-round rental. The cabin  currently has one dock and is getting a second dock this summer to allow for 4 boats to be able to  be parked there. They are unsure of how much capacity their current septic system has, but  indicated they would be willing to add on to get the system up to the capacity they desire, at least  10 people, but would like to ask for a maximum of 12 people. There was no as built submitted  when the system was installed so LWPO needs records indicating tank capacity and the size of  the mound to determine what the system gallons per day was designed for. The board  acknowledged the receipt of letters from neighboring property owners Jacob and Kelly Mertens,  Chris Caskey, Gary and Cathy Caskey, and Linda Kingery. The applicants also mentioned that  Wi-Fi was available in the rental and cell phone coverage worked as long as the renters had  Verizon cell service. The board then moved on to findings of fact and decision.  

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? Recreational use 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and  welfare? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change  

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water  pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X )  Why or why not?  

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage  features, and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) Why or why not?  

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or  floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) Why or why not?  

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil  type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?   YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) Why or why not?  

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

 YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Lake access only 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses?  

 YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Residential 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? 

 YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Vacation rental- water orientated 

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? Occupancy to be limited to septic inspection  

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? See #10 for septic – new well adequate  

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? Building a second dock  

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? Must mark property lines  

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 sign approximately 2’x3’  

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the  applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be  addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A  ( X ) 

Why or why not?  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1.) Quiet time from 10PM to 8AM 

2.) Occupancy to be based on septic size to a maximum of 12 people  

3.) Rules to be posted: quiet time, capacity limits, stay on property, no tents for additional  capacity 

4.) Contact information must be provided for complaints, emergencies, and septic 

5.) Conditional Use Permit expires on sale of property  

6.) Meet all MDH guidelines 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:  

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( X ) Denied ( ) Motion to approve with conditions Dave/ Nancy. All in favor.  

Motion to Adjourn at 8:13PM – Monica/Ken. All in favor. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on April 7, 2021 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken  Horntvedt, Dave Marhula and Wes Johnson. The following members were absent: Reed  McFarlane 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 Marhula/Horntvedt 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 3, 2021 – M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #21-02V by Terry Brateng: Lots 4 & 5, Block 1,  Subdivision of Outlot A of Riverside Plat, Section Seventeen (17), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.51.01.040.  Applicant is requesting a Variance as required by Section 501.1 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to create a lot less than the minimum one (1) acre lot size for a  non-shoreland property located in a Residential Zoning District (R1). 

Mr. Mio asked Mr. Brateng to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Brateng explained that  he has a river lot and then recently purchased this backlot. His request is to retain a portion of the  lot for a future storage shed and then sell the other portion to his brother and sister in law.  Discussion between the Board and Mr. Brateng ensued. They discussed future develop plans of  the lots, setback requirements, and adjoining the back lot with the river lot. 

With no further discussion from the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any  objections. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE Name of Applicant: Terry Brateng Date: April 7, 2021 

Parcel #: 24.51.01.040 Variance Application #: 21-02V 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? 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? No change/residential. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot boundaries/original plat. 

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

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. 

Condition(s): River lot (Lot 13, Block 1, Riverside Plat) and Lot #4 (Lot 4, Block 1, Subdivision of  Outlot A of Riverside Plat) to be forever attached as one parcel. 

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 Condition: M/S/P Marhula/Head. All in favor, none opposed.  

– Consideration of Variance #21-03V by Michael Klein: Part of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1,  Wheeler’s Point, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 19.52.01.040. Applicant is requesting a Variance  as required by Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to  construct an addition less than the required ten (10) foot property line and the seventy five (75) foot Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) setbacks within the shoreland area of  Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development lake. 

Mr. Mio asked Mr. Klein to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Klein explained that he  would like to add a small addition to the existing structure to accommodate a full bath, utility  room, washer/dryer, closet and storage. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Klein ensued.  They discussed the age of the current structure, proximity to the lot line as per the survey, and  the Wheeler’s Point Sanitary District. 

With no further discussion from the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any  objections.

Name of Applicant: Michael Klein Date: April 7, 2021 

Parcel #: 19.52.01.040 Variance Application #: 21-03VLake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

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. 

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 and position of structure. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Previous owners and plat. 

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 and position of structures. 

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 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED (X) DENIED ( ) 

Motion to Approve As Presented: M/S/P Johnson/Marhula. All in favor, none opposed.  

With no further business in front of the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio entertained a  motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting. 

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head. All in favor, none  opposed. 

Mr. Mio entertained a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting. 

Motion to open the Planning Commission meeting: M/S/P Head/Marhula. All in favor,  none opposed.  

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-04CU by Devlin Reasy: Lots 4 and 5,  Block 1, Turgeon Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161)  North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 24.60.01.040. Applicant is requesting a  Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of the shore impact  zone of the Rainy River for the purposes of controlling erosion and sedimentation. The  Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment. 

Mr. Mio asked Mr. Reasy to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Reasy explained that he  would like revitalize an existing access to the Rainy, address bank erosion and behind the house  address some erosion with fabric and rock in the ravine. Discussion between the Board and Mr.  Reasy ensued. They discussed proper erosion control and seeding the exposed soil immediately. 

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any  objections. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Devlin Reasy Date: April 7, 2021 

Location/Legal Description: Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Turgeon Estates, Section Twenty (20),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID#  24.60.01.040. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material  within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of the shore  impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of controlling erosion and sedimentation. 

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? Control erosion. 

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? Erosion control. 

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 adversely affect these. 

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or  floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type  and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? 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 ( ) Motion to Approve As Presented: M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula. All in favor, none opposed.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-05CU by Knife River on behalf of The  Welberg Family Trust: The SW¼NE ¼; SE¼NW¼; NE¼SW¼; NW¼SE¼; Section  Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West, Parcel ID# 19.36.13.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as  required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow  the expansion and continue the extractive and commercial use of the property consisting  of aggregate mining and washing and hot mix asphalt plant in a Rural Residential Zoning  District (R2). 

Mr. Mio asked the representative from Knife River to come forward and explain the request. Mr.  Basgaard represented Knife River and provided a brief history of the project area as well as  detailing the future expansion to the current project areas. Discussion between the Board and Mr.  Basgaard ensued. They discussed noise, dust control, hours of operation, truck routes, permit  requirements from MPCA, reclamation, quantity of aggregate, existing berms, and proposed  berm locations from the overburden of the proposed expansion site. 

Mio asked if anyone in the audience would like to say anything regarding the request. 

Jonathan McHaney, lives to the east of the pit, brought up truck traffic routes and screening  between the residences and pit. Through this discussion, the requested area doesn’t involve the  area where Mr. McHaney was talking about. There are two property owners and Mr. McHaney  was talking about the pit owned by the other landowner. 

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Knife River on behalf of The Welberg Family Trust Date: April 7, 2021 

Location/Legal Description: The SW¼NE ¼; SE¼NW¼; NE¼SW¼; NW¼SE¼; Section  Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West,  Parcel ID# 19.36.13.000. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C  of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion and continue the  extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining and washing and  hot mix asphalt plant 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? Existing aggregate mining. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Aggregate mining proposal. 

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? No change. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Same access as before expansion. 

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

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal  system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and  numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?  

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or  other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)  requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from  adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for  the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from  adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) 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: 10-year CUP – Must meet all MPCA  requirements. 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Head. All in favor, none opposed.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-06CU by Knife River on behalf of  Michael Gamache: The SW¼NW ¼, Section Three (3), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 23.03.23.000. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive use of the property consisting of  aggregate mining in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2). 

Mr. Mio asked Mr. Basgaard to explain the request. Mr. Basgaard provided a brief history of the  project area as well as detailing the current requested project areas. Discussion between the  Board and Mr. Basgaard ensued. They discussed noise, dust control, hours of operation, truck  routes, permit requirements from MPCA, reclamation, quantity of aggregate, existing berms, and  proposed berm locations from the overburden of the proposed expansion site. 

Mio asked if anyone in the audience would like to say anything regarding the request. 

Brian Labore, landowner to the west, inquired as to the noise, hours of operation, traffic  noise and congestion, and if a crusher will be present. 

Mr. Marhula and Mr. Stromlund relayed phone conversations they had with the adjacent  neighbor regarding a lot line dispute. 

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Knife River on behalf of Michael Gamache Date: April 7, 2021 

Location/Legal Description: The SW¼NW ¼, Section Three (3), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 23.03.23.000. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C  of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive use of the property  consisting of aggregate mining 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? Aggregate mining. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Aggregate mining to create a pond. 

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? Existing road. 

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

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal  system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and  numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?  

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or  other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)  requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from  adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Not needed – vegetative cover in place. 

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for  the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from  adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant  adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Via 38^th Ave NW. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: CUP tied to LOW County Road #6 project. 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/S/P Horntvedt/Johnson. All in favor, none opposed. With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:59 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Johnson/Marhula

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 4, 2017 

M/S/P G. Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment: 

New Business 

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

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

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

Discussion ensured between the Board and Mr. Kinsella. 

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Mike Kinsella of Border View Lodge Date: April 4, 2018

Applicant:  

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

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result  in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon  consideration of the following criteria: 

1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods  County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

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

Resort area, replacement of existing deck 

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by  the official control? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not?  No change 

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

River frontage and setback (historical) 

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

See #3 

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

No Change 

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

Aesthetics, Safety 

Condition(s): 

1. Maintain original size of platform or smaller. 

2. Complete by 12/31/2018 

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

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the  Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance. 

Approved (X) Denied ( )

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Horntvedt. 

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

Adjournment:  

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

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

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

Planning Commission: 

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

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

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

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

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

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

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

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

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business  consisting of transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Rural Residential District  (R2). 

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land  Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Vacation renal area. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution,  including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features,  and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway  of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type  and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? On existing county road, driveway exists. 

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

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal  system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Septic exists.

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

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Already exist. 

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and  numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or  other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)  requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from  adjacent properties? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Not needed. 

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the  number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent  properties to the extent possible? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Described in application. 

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant  adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Existing parking available. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __________________________________ 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

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

Motion made by Head to approve the request as presented. 

Motion seconded by S. Levasseur. 

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

Adjournment: 

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

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings.  

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund