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 2nd by 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 2nd by 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 2nd by 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 2nd by 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 42nd Avenue 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 42nd Ave 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 42nd NW.  

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.

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 42nd Avenue 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 42nd Ave 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 42nd NW.  

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.

August 1, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on August 1, 2018 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 11, 2018 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Planning Commission: 

Old Business 

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-07CU by S & M  Resorts – Shelia Mayer: Lots 2 & 3, Block 4 of Wheeler’s Point Plat in Section  Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31)  West (Wheeler), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID#  

19.52.04.020.Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section  401-B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to amend a prior  Conditional use permit (15-08CU) that placed a condition – “Valid for S & M Resorts  LLC, d.b.a Wheelers Point Resort” to allow rental cabin to be rented by potential new  owners of what is currently known as Wheelers Point Resort by conducting a commercial business consisting of a transient rental in a Residential District (R1).  The Rainy River is an agricultural river segment. 

Chairman Mio read a letter from Mrs. Mayer dated July 16, 2018 into the record. stating that she  is withdrawing her request for a Conditional Use Permit. 

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-08CU by JRF  Properties, LLC – Alan Fish: Lots 1-5, Block 1, 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# 19.70.01.010  through 19.70.01.050. 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 to the table and explain his request.

Mr. Fish explained that the County Attorney was going to review the Covenants and  Restrictions, he wasn’t sure if that has taken place yet. He also stated that he sent out proposed  revised Covenants and Restrictions. He has not heard from any other landowners in the  association as of now.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Fish. Covenants and Restrictions and zoning were  discussed. Mr. Stromlund informed the Board about zoning and allowable land use in Marina  Drive Estates.  

Mio stated that there were two letters regarding this property and read them into the record. Members of the public expressed concerns to the proposed campground.  

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

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

Name of Applicant: JRF Properties, LLC Date: August 1, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: Lots 1-5, Block 1, Marina Drive Estates, Section Thirty-six (36),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel IDs#  19.70.01.010; 19.70.01.020; 19.70.01.030; 19.70.01.040; 19.70.01.050. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to create a Planned Unit Development consisting of a seasonal  camping/RV park with twenty-five full hook-ups. 

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use  Plan?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? _In County growth corridor and zoned commercial_____________ 

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

Why or why not? _Has to meet State standards_______________________________ 

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? __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? ___Roads exists_________________________________________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Zoned commercial, adjoining campground___________________ 

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? __Meet State approval____________________________________ 

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? ___Must meet State approval_______________________________ 

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? __Will meet State requirements_____________________________ 

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-site parking________________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: Must meet density requirements, must meet Dept.  of Health standards, completed by 12/31/2019. 

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 1, 2018 _____________________________________  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 Horntvedt to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Marhula. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

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

Adjournment: 

M/S/P McFarlane/Head, meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m.