7:00 P.M. on December 6, 2023
Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Monica Dohmen,
Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Nancy Dunnell, Marshall Nelson and Wes Johnson. Others present were Land and
Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.
Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.
Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 1, 2023- Motion to approve – Nelson/Dohmen. All in favor.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.
Planning Commission – New Business
- Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-19CU by Leach and Associates, LLC: Tract
in Government Lot 2 of Section Thirty-four (34), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range
Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 03.34.24.040. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as
required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than 10 cubic
yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage that
occurred during the 2022 high water event. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
Mary Leach was present via phone call at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board.
The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.
Name of Applicant: Leach and Associates, LLC Date: December 12, 2023
Location/Legal Description: Tract in Government Lot 2 of Section Thirty-four (34), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight
(168) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 03.34.24.040
Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods
County Zoning Ordinance to move more than 10 cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone
of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage that occurred during the 2022 high water event.
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? Shoreline protection.
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Lakeshore.
6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative
cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? ________________________________________________________________
7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Residential.
9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Lake of the Woods.
10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to
accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the
Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft
that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material
that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought?
YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?
YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size
requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?
YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how
the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
The answers to the questions above, together with the facts supporting the answers and those other facts that exist in the
record, are hereby certified to be the Findings of the County Board of Commissioners.
The specific reasons for denial or conditions of approval are as follows:
- CUP also covers any future maintenance.
- Follow DNR guidelines for rock rip rap.
Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( )
Motion made by Mio to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Nelson. All in favor, motion
carried.
- Consideration of Interim Use Permit Application #23-01IU by Tracy and Sandra Pogue: Lot 1,
Block 3, River Oaks Plat, Section One (1), Township One-hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range
Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 23.52.03.010. Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit as
required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term
vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). Johnson Creek is a tributary river
segment.
Tracy Pogue was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board
discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.
Name of Applicant: Tracy and Sandra Pogue Date: December 6, 2023
Location/Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 3, River Oaks Plat
Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods
County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential Zoning District (R1).
1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? In the development corridor.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This includes the
following items:
- Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms
- Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • Fire extinguisher(s)
- Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows
- Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? As per application.
3) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Rural residential.
4) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Oak Harbor Drive.
5) Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how
the increased traffic is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Previous residence.
6) Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? On site.
7) Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?
YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( )
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________
8) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size
requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?
YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( )
Why or why not? No signage needed.
9) What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s location?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? See application.
10) Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Same as residential.
11) Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Same as residential.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):
X
The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or transfer of the
property, whichever occurs first.
X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application.
X The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application.
X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application.
X A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required.
X No on street parking is allowed.
X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements.
Additional Conditions are as follows: _______________________________________________________
The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board
of Commissioners that this proposal be:
Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( )
Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dunnell. All in favor,
motion carried.
With no further business before the Planning Commission, Marhula made a motion to adjourn and seconded by
Johnson. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:29 PM.