August 2, 2023

7:00 P.M. on August 2, 2023

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 12, 2023- Motion to approve- Tom/Wes. All in favor. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.

Board of Adjustment – New Business

– Consideration of Variance #23-03V by Christopher and Dawn Eklund: A tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE¼SW¼) Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID # 19.21.34.040. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure to be placed within the required seventy-five (75) foot setback of Lake of the Woods and less than the required ten (10) foot lot line setback. This portion of Bostic Creek is considered Lake of the Woods, a General Development Lake.

Chris 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 and decision.

Name of Applicant: Christopher and Dawn Eklund Date: August 2, 2023 Parcel #: 19.21.34.040 Variance Application #: 23-03V

Project Request: Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure to be placed within the required seventy-five (75) foot setback of Lake of the Woods and less than the required ten (10) foot lot line setback.

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:

Project Request: Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure to be placed within the required seventy-five (75) foot setback of Lake of the Woods and less than the required ten (10) foot lot line setback.

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 in a commercial zoning district.

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. Same footprint.

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 the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.

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

Motion to Approve as submitted – Dave/Marshall. All in favor.

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting – Tom/Wes. All in favor.

Motion to open the Planning Commission – Marshall/Dave. All in favor.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-12CU by Christopher and Dawn Eklund: A tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE¼SW¼) Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID # 19.21.34.040. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 6.3 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Floodplain Ordinance to allow an alternative elevation method of the existing structure. This portion of Bostic Creek is considered Lake of the Woods, a General Development Lake.

Chris 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 and decision.

Name of Applicant: Christopher and Dawn Eklund Date: August 2, 2023

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE1/4SW1/4) Section Twenty-one (21), Township One-hundred sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.21.34.040.

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 6.3 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Floodplain Ordinance to allow an alternative elevation method of the existing structure.

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 and residential.

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

Why or why not? Structure stabilization.

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Bostic Bay waterfront.

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

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change.

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Existing recreational cabin.

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? New sewer system to be installed.

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? New well and 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 ( ) 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 (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Private driveway.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1. Upgrading of well and septic system to be completed one year from approval.

2. Lowest portion of the building must be at 1066.2 or higher.

3. Meet all other applicable requirements per Lake of the Woods County Floodplain Ordinance.

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 ( )

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-11CU by Jesse Mayfield and Steve Asplin: That portion of Government Lot 9, Section Six (6), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West (Gudrid) – Parcel ID# 31.06.44.020. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401 B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a commercial activity consisting of a storage building in a non-shoreland Residential Development Zoning District (R1).

Jesse and Steve were 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 and decision.

Name of Applicant: Jesse Mayfield and Steve Asplin Date: August 2, 2023

Location/Legal Description: That portion of Gov. Lot 9 lying South and West of State Highway #11 and lying South and East of County Road #35 in Section Six (6), Township One-hundred sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West – Parcel ID# 31.06.44.020.

Project Proposal: Allow commercial activity consisting of a storage building in a non-shoreland Residential Development 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? Development in 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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? L/W County Road 35.

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

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Onsite parking.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1. CUP specific to this application only.

2. No habitation.

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 Adjourn at 7:42 PM- Tom/Marshall. All in favor.

August 3, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting

7:00 P.M. on August 3, 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, Marshall Nelson, 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 –Ken/Monica. All in favor. Changed order

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 6, 2022- Motion to approve- Dave /Nancy. All in favor.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.

Planning Commission: New Business

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-04ZC by Nels Holte: Government Lot Three (3), Section Seventeen (17), Township One hundred Sixty-two North (162), Range Thirty-two West (32) with Parcel ID# 19.17.24.010. Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by Section 1206. The amendment would change the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District for the purposes of continued development of the property.

Mr. Holte explained the need for the zone change request due to previous development that occurred on the property decades ago. He is proposing to have an attached garage to the current structure.

Name of Applicant: Nels Holte Date: August 3, 2022 Location/Legal Description: Government Lot 3 Section 17, T. 162N, R. 32W

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection (SP) Proposed: Rural Residential (R2) Parcel Number(s): 19.17.24.010 Application Number: 22-04ZC

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: Currently residential

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification? X Yes ___No Comments: Additional residential in area

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: 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

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: No change

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood?___Yes X No Comments: No change

Conditions: Homeowner should consider a permanent ring dike/rip rap/breakwater to encircle structure and septic system

Motion by Horntvedt to approve, with conditions, the request zone change by Holte.

The motion was 2^ndby Marhula, all in favor. Motion passes.

– Consideration of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance Revisions

o Articles X – XI (Ten – Eleven)

Stromlund discussed upcoming need to get Floodplain Ordinance approved prior to October 27 in order for homeowners to be able to continue getting flood insurance. Articles 10 – 11 of the Zoning Ordinance were discussed including minor changes in order to simplify reading of the ordinance. Sections 101-107 had no questions from the group. Section 108 has minor tweaking regarding conveying property. Administrative and Minor Subdivision language was mentioned. Recording of surveys within a

given timeframe was discussed as there are several old surveys that never got recorded that people try to convey and can’t. Timeframe was suggested as one year. Discussion was stopped as the Hayden party joined the meeting.

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-01ZC by Jennice Hayden: Southwest quarter (¼) of the Northeast quarter (¼) in Section Seven (7), Township One-hundred sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West- Parcel ID# 06.07.13.000. Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by Section 1206. The amendment would change the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing a permanent structure to be located on the property for residential purposes.

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-02ZC by Jennice Hayden: Southeast quarter (¼) of the Northwest quarter (¼) in Section Seven (7), Township One-hundred sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West- Parcel ID# 06.07.24.000. Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by Section 1206. The amendment would change the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing a permanent structure to be located on the property for residential purposes.

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-03ZC by Jennice Hayden: Southwest quarter (¼) of the Northwest quarter (¼) in Section Seven (7), Township One-hundred sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West- Parcel ID# 06.07.23.000.

Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by Section 1206. The amendment would change the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing a permanent structure to be located on the property for residential purposes.

Mrs. Hayden described the property and how she hopes to add several small cabins for her children to be able to visit. Access to the property would be from the Allen Trail. Logging trails are common in the angle and Hayden has no concerns about future access to the property as old logging trails are sufficient. The Hayden’s had hired the DNR to accompany them to the property in order to assess the land. Their initial plans are for a two-story cabin and then spread out from there. Marhula recommended that the Planning Commission only allow a zone change on one parcel at a time which has historically been done and the Hayden family agreed it should be the parcel furthest to the west. Marhula recommended the group move to the findings of fact on that particular parcel. The Planning Commission decided to do the findings in the order of: 22-03ZC, 22-02ZC and then 22-01ZC.

Name of Applicant: Jennice Hayden Date: August 3, 2022 Location/Legal Description: SW¼NW¼ Section 7, T. 167N, R. 33W

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection (SP) Proposed: Rural Residential (R2)

Parcel Number(s): 06.07.23.000 Application Number: 22-03ZC

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: Recreational use

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification?X Yes ___No Comments: Mostly state land and tribal land

3. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood?___Yes X No

Comments: Limited residential use

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: No change

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the proposal?___Yes X No

Comments: 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: None

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood?___Yes X No Comments: No change

Conditions:

1) All buildings must follow all property setbacks

2) Any septic system must be approved

Motion by Dohmen to approve, with conditions, the request zone change by Holte.

The motion was 2^ndby Marhula, all in favor. Motion passes.

Name of Applicant: Jennice Hayden Date: August 3, 2022 Location/Legal Description: SE¼NW¼ Section 7, T. 167N, R. 33W

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection (SP) Proposed: Rural Residential (R2)

Parcel Number(s): 06.07.24.000 Application Number: 22-02ZC

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?___Yes X No Comments: No plan for the property submitted

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification? X Yes ___No Comments: No change

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: No change

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the proposal?___Yes X No

Comments: 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: No change

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood?___Yes X No Comments: No change

Motion by Dohmen to deny the requested zone change.

The motion was 2^ndby Horntvedt, all in favor. Motion passes.

Name of Applicant: Jennice Hayden Date: August 3, 2022 Location/Legal Description: SW¼NE¼ Section 7, T. 167N, R. 33W

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection (SP) Proposed: Rural Residential (R2) Parcel Number(s): 06.07.13.000 Application Number: 22-01ZC

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?___Yes X No Comments: No plan submitted

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification? X Yes ___No Comments: No change

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: No change

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the proposal?___Yes X No

Comments: 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: No change

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

___Yes X No

Comments: No change

Motion by Nelson to deny the requested zone change.

The motion was 2^ndby Dunnell, all in favor. Motion passes.

– Consideration of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance Revisions

o Articles X – XI (Ten – Eleven)

Discussion resumed with completion of the Hayden requests. Plats will need to have the preliminary completed within a one-year time frame. Then there is a 45-day window until final plat is recorded. Road right of way will be changing to 80’. Tiers along shoreland language was simplified to two tiers. Density for resort PUD’s is changing to a square footage percentage of impervious surface rather than number of structures. This will be for new resorts only. Setbacks will also be increased for new resorts. Conversions to Residential PUD’s requires residential standards for density. Enforcement of ordinance was mentioned as something we continue to try to improve.

A Septic Inspection requirement upon sale or transfer was removed due to discussion about the available number of inspectors and installers in the county. Cost of inspections was also noted as a concern to adding such language.

Motion to Adjourn at 8:50 PM- Monica/Nancy. All in favor.

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

August 7, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on August 7, 2019

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane, Dave Marhula, 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 agenda – M/S/P Head/Horntvedt

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 10, 2019

M/S/P Marhula/Head

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

– None

Board of Adjustment – New Business

– Consideration of Variance #19-09V by Morris Point Lake View Lodge: A tract in Government Lots 4 and 5, Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, and Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.16.23.000. Applicant is requesting a variance as required by Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to replace an existing structure at less than a seventy-five (75) foot setback to the OHWL of Lake of the Woods, and less than the required fifty (50) foot setback from the road right-of-way of 42^ndAvenue NW. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

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

Mr. Holte explained that he would like replace an old building with a new one. He explained that he would like to keep the building the same as it currently is as one side as a cabin and one side as a storage shed.

Mr. Holte explained that if he got approval for the building that he would move the building five feet farther away from the ordinary high-water level.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Holte and the Board. The board asked questions regarding about where the road right of way is located. Discussion then turned to that a portion of 42^ndAve NW may have to be abandoned to verify that the building is not located in the right of way. Discussion then turned to what Mr. Holte can do without a variance.

Land and Water Planning director Josh Stromlund mentioned that the building could be located within the right of way and that the board should use caution about granting a variance for a structure that they don’t know if it is within the right of way or not.

The board then discussed tabling the request till the next meeting to allow for the Lake of the Woods County Highway department to survey the right of way near the building and also for the county board to considered abandoning a portion of 42^ndNW.

Motion made by Marhula to table the request until the next meeting.

Motion seconded by Nelson.

All in favor, motion passed.

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

Motion made by Horntvedt to close Board of Adjustment.

Motion seconded by Marhula.

All in favor, motion passed.

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting.

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-09CU by Scott Wold: A tract of land in the NE¼ of the SE¼, Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.21.13.020. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401A of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to develop an area for the construction of a 40’ x 60’ dwelling structure with a mound septic system in an area that is zoned as Special Protection (SP).

Mio asked Mr. Wold to come to the table.

Mio asked Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund how the meeting should proceed with the meeting.

Land and Water Director stated that he had prepared a note to be read into the record. Mio Read the note into the record. The note stated that based on legal advice obtained that the Land and Water Planning office should not of accepted a Conditional Use Permit for a use that is not allowed by the use table for a special protection district located in the Lake of the Wood County Zoning Ordinance.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Wold and the Board. Mr. Wold outlined his timeline of the process to obtain the property and attempt to obtain all of the required permits. The Board then gave Mr. Wold the option to apply for a zone change on the property.

Discussion then ensued between the board and Mr. Wold.

Mio then asked if anybody in attendance had a comment. Carl Olson stated that he was not in favor of the request and that his neighbor Jared Martinson also was not in favor as well.

Discussion between the Board and Mr. Wold to outlined the procedure that Mr. Wold would need to go through to apply for the Zone Change.

Mio asked the Board for their recommendation.

The board stated that if there are 2 sites for a standard septic system and he went through the zone change process and all of the requirements for a zone change are met that they would recommend the request to the county board.

Mio then proceeded to the next request.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-10CU by Nels Holte: Lots 5 and 6, Block 6, Morris Point Estates Subdivision in Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.69.06.050, 19.69.06.060. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a Commercial Planned Unit Development in an area that is zoned as Commercial Recreation.

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

Mr. Holte explained that he would like to construct a 4-plex commercial planned unit development with transient rental of the structure or long-term rental of the structure.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Holte and the Board. The board asked questions regarding how the sewage would be handled for the structure. Discussion then turned to why a conditional use permit is need for a parcel that is zoned as commercial.

Mike Reed then stated his frustrations with the need for a conditional use permit on commercially zoned property.

Discussion between the board member then stated the need for commercial property to go through the conditional use process when a commercial planned unit development is proposed on a parcel.

Planning Commission member Reed McFarlane made a motion to proceed to the findings of fact.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Nels Holte Date: August 7, 2019

Location/Legal Description: Lot 5 and 6, Block 6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID# 19.69.06.050, 19.69.06.060

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to create a Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting of a 4-plex transient rental cabin.

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 plan.

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

Why or why not? To meet state regulations.

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? Will 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? Already exists.

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

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? New system to meet state and county specs.

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? To meet state and county specs.

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 required.

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? 4’ x 8’ 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? On county road and on site parking.

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 ( )

August 7, 2019 _____________________________ Date Tom Mio Chair, Planning Commission

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. Motion made by Marhula to approve as Presented.

Motion seconded by Nelson.

All in favor, motion passed.

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

Adjournment: M/S/P McFarlane/Head

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.