7:00 P.M. on February 1, 2023 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Nancy Dunnell, Ken Horntvedt,  Monica Dohmen 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. 

Election of Chair: Monica Nominated Ken for Chair, Nancy Seconded. All in favor 

Election of Vice Chair: Ken Nominated Tom for Vice Chair, Monica seconded. All in favor Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 2, 2022- Motion to approve- Dave/Nancy. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #23-01CU by Daniel Miller: The Southeast quarter of the  Northeast quarter (SE¼NE¼), and Government Lot Four (4), Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred  Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, and subject to flowage  easement by the United States Government. – Parcel ID# 06.11.41.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional  Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct an  inland harbor connected to Lake of the Woods, which was permitted by the Minnesota Department of Natural  Resources in 2003. Also, the applicant is requesting the cumulative movement of more than fifty (50) cubic  yards of material outside of the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of disposing dredged  material. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Daniel Miller was present via phone call to discuss this request with the board and to answer any questions. Daniel noted  his need to complete the harbor to the depth as originally designed. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.  

Name of Applicant: Daniel Miller Date: February 1, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: The Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter (SE¼NE¼), and Government Lot Four (4),  Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West of the Fifth Principal  Meridian, and subject to flowage easement by the United States Government. – Parcel ID# 06.11.41.000 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to construct an inland harbor connected to Lake of the Woods, which was permitted by the  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in 2003. Also, the applicant is requesting the cumulative movement of more  than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of disposing  dredged material. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

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? Safe Harbor. 

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

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

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

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

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Harbor on an island. 

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

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

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material  that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES  ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( X ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Natural vegetation. 

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size  requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how  the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________   

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Follow DNR plan and approvals. 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Ken/Monica. All in favor.  

Motion to Adjourn at 7:23 PM- Dave/Nancy. All in favor. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting  7:00 P.M. on February 2, 2022  

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Nancy  Dunnell, Ken Horntvedt, Marshall Nelson, Monica Dohmen, Wes Johnson 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 agenda-Marshall/Wes. All in favor.    

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 5, 2021- Motion to approve- Dave/Ken. All in favor.    

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None  

Board of Adjustment: New Business  

– Consideration of Variance Application #22-02V by Philip Tange: a tract in  Government Lot Three (3), Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.25.31.060. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 1005 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to sell a portion of property and relocate the boundary line between two  abutting non-conforming lots of record, which will increase the degree of nonconformity  for lot size and width within the shoreland area of the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an  Agricultural River segment. 

Mr. Tange was present to discuss the request. He indicated that he had sold a portion of the  property to the neighboring lot owners in 2018 and now he would just like to continue the line  across the property, while writing himself in a permanent easement to ensure he has legal access  to his property. The board clarified there were several requests with regards to this variance  request that would all be addressed with this one application. The board then moved on to the  findings of fact and decision.  

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? No change in conformity of 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? No change.  

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and access issues. 

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

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? Access and lot size. 

Condition(s): 

1. New owner to agree to permanent easement for access. 

2. West lot line to be adjusted by future survey. 

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 ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X) DENIED ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions- Ken/Monica. All in favor.  

Motion to close Board of Adjustment- Ken/ Dave. All in favor.  

Motion to open Planning Commission- Monica/ Marshall. All in favor.  

Planning Commission: Old Business  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-01CU by Jon Meikle: Northwest  quarter (NW ¼) Northwest quarter (NW ¼) of Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West — Parcel ID# 19.28.22.000.  Applicant is requesting an After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit as required by Section  902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10)  cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards  outside of the shore impact zone of the Lake of the Woods for the purpose of constructing  a private drive. Bostic Creek is a Tributary River segment.  

Planning Commission asked the landowner if they would be willing to table the request until the  board can see what the activity actually looks like. The landowner needs to submit something in  writing to extend the 60 day window. The landowner agreed with the request and said he would  be in to sign the agreement this week. This request has been tabled until spring.  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-02CU by Winter Sett Inc. Michael  Herzog: Lot 12, Block 3, Winter Sett Estates of Section nine (9) Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 18.51.03.120.  Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake  of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to cumulatively move more than fifty (50) cubic  yards of material outside of the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose 

of disposing dredged material from an existing inland harbor. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

Mr. Herzog was present to speak on behalf of the request. Essentially, he just wants to clean  out his harbor and then place this spoil material onto a bare lot that he owns just down the  road. He expects to deposit roughly 500 cubic yards of material onto this lot. This has been  done in the past but there was no conditional use permit ever requested. Three letters of  correspondence were read into the record from neighboring landowners in support of Mr.  Herzog’s request. There was an additional letter received from Brent Mason (DNR Area  Hydrologist) in response to the dredging of the harbor itself and not the deposit of material.  The board received copies of all letters in board packets with exception to one received from  a neighbor on the day of the meeting Feb 2, 2022. The board then moved on to the findings  of fact.  

Project Proposal: To allow applicant to cumulatively move more than fifty (50) cubic yards of  material outside the shore impact zone of the Lake of the Woods for the purpose of dredging an  existing inland harbor. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.  

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

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

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) 

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

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)  

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? No change. 

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

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

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

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) 

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) 

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

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) 

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) 

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

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) 

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) 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: None  

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

Approved as Presented (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve as Presented – Dave/ Marshall. All in favor.  

– Set Date/Time of Training Session 

The board discussed possible dates for training with Scott Anderson – Land Use  Attorney.  

Motion to Adjourn at 7:34PM – Dave/Wes. All in favor. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on February 3, 2021 

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 6^th, 2021 – Motion to change adjournment, Reed  McFarlane was not present at the last meeting so he could not have motioned to adjourn. M/S/P – Horntvedt/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– Tom Mio indicated a conflict of interest for CUP 21-02CU 

– Dave Marhula indicated a conflict of interest for CUP 21-01CU 

Planning Commission – Old Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-01CU by Grant and Savanna Slick: A 4.6-acre tract in Section Twenty-nine (29), Range One Hundred Sixty-one (161)  North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.29.22.020. Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a  Rural Residential Zoning (R2). 

Mr. Mio asked the Slicks to come forward and explain their request. The Slicks explained that they  recently purchased a new property adjacent to their existing short-term vacation rental with the intent  of renting it as a short-term vacation rental. They presented additional information regarding  potential ‘house rules’ for the property in response to neighbor complaints. 

Discussion between the Commission and the Slicks ensued. They discussed property line  demarcation. 

Mr. Mio then opened the meeting to comments from the public. Several members of the public spoke  in opposition to the request. One additional letter was noted for the record in support of the  application. 

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

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

Name of Applicant: Grant & Savanna Slick_________________ Date: February 3, 2021_____

Location/Legal Description: A Tract of land in Section Twenty-nine (29), Range One Hundred  Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.29.22.020 

Project Proposal: Operate a short-term transient rental in a Rural Residential Zoning District  (R2) 

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

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

Why or why not? No change. 

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

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

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

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

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? County Road #75. 

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

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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 be checked. 

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

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? County Road #75 and onsite parking. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1. Septic inspection Spring of 2021. 
2. Rules must be posted on website. 
   1. Boat speed 
   2. Quite times @ 10:00 pm 
   3. Capacity of 8 on the property 
   4. No tents or campers for additional renters/capacity 
   5. Contact information must be available for complaints 
   6. No events during rentals 
   7. Breaking rules result in eviction immediately 
   8. Dogs and pets on leashes or restraints 
   9. Trespass issues on neighboring property 
   10. Visibly mark property lines 
   11. ATV and snowmobile traffic 
3. CUP expires on transfer/sale

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 ( ) February 3, 2021 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  

Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head. All in favor, none opposed.  Marhula: abstained. Motion passes.  

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-02CU by L & S Investing, LLC:  Government Lots 3, 4, and 5, less deeded in Section Seven (7), Range One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#:  24.07.32.009. Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a  short-term transient rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District. 

Mio asked the applicants to come forward and explain his request. Mr. Steinbach and Mrs.  Lawrence explained that they are in the process of converting the main lodge of the bible  camp in to a 4-bedroom residence to be rented as a VRBO. They explained that their long term goals are to subdivide the larger parcel.  

Discussion between the board and the applicant ensued. They discussed renting out  additional units on the site, resort definitions, parking and capacity.  

Mio read correspondence received regarding this request in to the record.  

Mr. Mio then opened the meeting to comments from the public. Several members of the public  expressed concerns regarding this request. 

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

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

Name of Applicant: L & S Investing LLC Date: February 3, 2021 

Location/Legal Description: Government Lots 3, 4, and 5, less deeded in Section Seven (7),  Range One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#:  24.07.32.009

Project Proposal: Operate a short-term transient rental in a 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? Promote additional businesses. 

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

Why or why not? No change. 

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

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

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

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? County Road #30. 

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

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? To be inspected Spring 2021. 

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? To be inspected Spring 2021. 

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? County Road #30 and onsite parking. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Septic inspection Spring of 2021. 
2. Rules must be posted on website 
   1. Boat speed 
   2. Quite times @ 10:00 pm 
   3. Contact information must be available for complaints 
   4. No tents or campers for additional renters/occupants 
   5. No events during rentals 
   6. Breaking rules result in eviction immediately 
   7. Dogs and pets on leashes or restrained 
   8. Trespass issues on neighboring property 
   9. ATV and Snowmobile traffic on property controlled 
   10. Capacity limited to septic sized to 75 gal/person/day 
   11. CUP based on current building size and dimensions on Lot #3 (3.41 acres) on  conceptual plat. 
3. CUP expires on transfer/sale.

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 ( ) February 3, 2021 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  Motion to Approve with conditions: M/S/P Head/Marhula, Mio abstained. Motion passes.  

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Head/Marhula

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on February 5, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Marshall Nelson,  Dave Marhula, Scott Head, Wes Johnson and Ken Horntvedt. Members absent: Reed McFarlane 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 table Preliminary Plat until the next meeting, removing it from today’s agenda Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 8, 2020 

M/S/P Horntvedt/Nelson 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-02CU by Powder River  Development Services, LLC: the NE4NE4 Less Deeded; NW4NE4, Section  Nine (9), Range One Hundred Fifty-eight (158) North, Range Thirty-one (31)  West – Parcel ID#: 43.09.11.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use  Permit as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to operate a commercial communications tower in a Rural Residential  District (R2). 

Blair Ransom of Powder River Development came forward to explain the request. The request is  to place a cell tower on Tom LeVasseur’s property. He explained that this is a part of nationwide  effort to place cell towers to aid in first responders.  

Discussion between Mr. Ransom and the Commission ensued. They discussed the height of the  tower, guyed wires, lights and placement.  

Mr. Mio opened up the meeting to public comments. Members of the public expressed  opposition to the request. They expressed concern over placement of the tower, property value  and health concerns. Alternate tower sites were proposed by the public. Two letters from the  public were read into the record in opposition to the request.  

Motion to Table the request: M/S/P Marhula/Nelson 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. 

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Adjournment: M/S/P Nelson/Horntvedt

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on February 6, 2019 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken  Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane, Dave Marhula and Marshall Nelson. Others present were: Land and  Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

Motion to amend agenda – M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 9, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustments – New Business 

– Consideration of after-the-fact Variance #19-01V 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) West, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.21.13.021. Applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance from Section 4.1.4 of the Lake of the Woods County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System  Ordinance and Section 502.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to  allow the applicant to create an after- the-fact a non-conforming lot with less than the  required 100’ of frontage on Bostic Creek and without 2 sites for a standard septic  system in an area that is zoned as Special Protection (SP). 

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

Mr. Wold explained that he would like to build a seasonal cabin on the property and eventually  build pole barn for storage. He plans to use it primarily for ice fishing in the winter, it will not be  a residence. He explained that he was originally planning to purchase the entire 10-acre tract but  Beckels purchased the entire lot and he purchased a portion of it, not realizing that splitting the  lot would change what he was able to do on the lot. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Wold and the Board. Reunifying the lots, easements, property  lines, elevations and septic rules were discussed. 

The Board opened up the discussion to the public. The Board heard questions and comments  from Carl Olson and Jill Martinson. 

Mio read three letters into the record: one from Vic/Jeri Beckel, one from Tony/Patty Beckel and  one from Brent Mason of the MN DNR. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded 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: Scott Wold Date: February 6, 2019 Parcel #: 19.21.13.021 Variance Application #: 19-01V 

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? _Does not meet standards for buildable  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? __Housing site__________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Wetland /special protection________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Wetland_______________________ 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? _Lot standards/special protection_______ 

Condition(s):  

_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) DENIED ( x ) 

February 6, 2019 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to deny the request. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

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

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #19-02CU by Jerry and  Luann Hennum: A tract of land lying in in Government Lot 1 and in the Southeast  Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE¼NW¼), Section Twenty-eight (28), Township  One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Lake of the Woods  County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 24.28.21.030. 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 business consisting of a short-term vacation rental  in a Residential District (R1). 

Mio asked Mrs. Diana Hennum (Daughter-in-law) to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mrs. Hennum explained that they have a guest house on their property that they would like to  rent out when they are not there. 

Discussion ensued between Mrs. Hennum and the Board. The Board asked about how long the  house has been rented for and Mrs. Hennum answered that they had been renting since  September. House size/occupancy, lot line locations and septic were discussed. 

Mio read two letters into the record: one from the Minnesota Department of Health and the other  from Scott Schmisek. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed to the Findings  of Facts.

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

Name of Applicant: Jerry & Luann Hennum Date: February  6, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land lying in in Government Lot 1 and in the Southeast  Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE¼NW¼), Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) – Parcel ID# 24.28.21.030. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-B of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of  transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Residential 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? _Growth corridor________________________________________ 

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 MDH/County 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? ______________________________________________________ 

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? _Not in floodplain_______________________________________ 

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_________________________________________

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 ( ) 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? _Must meet MDH requirements_____________________________ 

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? _Must meet MDH requirements____________________________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __No change/adequate____________________________________ 

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 ( x ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___None planned________________________________________ 

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______________________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __1) Survey site to make sure all buildings within  lot lines. 2) Meet all MDH requirements. 3) CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property. 4)  Lodging tax for LOW County must be paid retro to 9/20/18___________________________ 

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 ( )

February 6, 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 McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Head.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

With no further business for the Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning  Commission.  

Adjournment: M/S/P

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on February 6, 2019 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken  Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane, Dave Marhula and Marshall Nelson. Others present were: Land and  Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

Motion to amend agenda – M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 9, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustments – New Business 

– Consideration of after-the-fact Variance #19-01V 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) West, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.21.13.021. Applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance from Section 4.1.4 of the Lake of the Woods County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System  Ordinance and Section 502.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to  allow the applicant to create an after- the-fact a non-conforming lot with less than the  required 100’ of frontage on Bostic Creek and without 2 sites for a standard septic  system in an area that is zoned as Special Protection (SP). 

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

Mr. Wold explained that he would like to build a seasonal cabin on the property and eventually  build pole barn for storage. He plans to use it primarily for ice fishing in the winter, it will not be  a residence. He explained that he was originally planning to purchase the entire 10-acre tract but  Beckels purchased the entire lot and he purchased a portion of it, not realizing that splitting the  lot would change what he was able to do on the lot. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Wold and the Board. Reunifying the lots, easements, property  lines, elevations and septic rules were discussed. 

The Board opened up the discussion to the public. The Board heard questions and comments  from Carl Olson and Jill Martinson. 

Mio read three letters into the record: one from Vic/Jeri Beckel, one from Tony/Patty Beckel and  one from Brent Mason of the MN DNR. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded 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: Scott Wold Date: February 6, 2019 Parcel #: 19.21.13.021 Variance Application #: 19-01V 

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? _Does not meet standards for buildable  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? __Housing site__________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Wetland /special protection________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Wetland_______________________ 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? _Lot standards/special protection_______ 

Condition(s):  

_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) DENIED ( x ) 

February 6, 2019 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to deny the request. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

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

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #19-02CU by Jerry and  Luann Hennum: A tract of land lying in in Government Lot 1 and in the Southeast  Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE¼NW¼), Section Twenty-eight (28), Township  One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Lake of the Woods  County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 24.28.21.030. 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 business consisting of a short-term vacation rental  in a Residential District (R1). 

Mio asked Mrs. Diana Hennum (Daughter-in-law) to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mrs. Hennum explained that they have a guest house on their property that they would like to  rent out when they are not there. 

Discussion ensued between Mrs. Hennum and the Board. The Board asked about how long the  house has been rented for and Mrs. Hennum answered that they had been renting since  September. House size/occupancy, lot line locations and septic were discussed. 

Mio read two letters into the record: one from the Minnesota Department of Health and the other  from Scott Schmisek. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed to the Findings  of Facts.

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

Name of Applicant: Jerry & Luann Hennum Date: February  6, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land lying in in Government Lot 1 and in the Southeast  Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE¼NW¼), Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) – Parcel ID# 24.28.21.030. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-B of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of  transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Residential 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? _Growth corridor________________________________________ 

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 MDH/County 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? ______________________________________________________ 

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? _Not in floodplain_______________________________________ 

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_________________________________________

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 ( ) 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? _Must meet MDH requirements_____________________________ 

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? _Must meet MDH requirements____________________________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __No change/adequate____________________________________ 

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 ( x ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___None planned________________________________________ 

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______________________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __1) Survey site to make sure all buildings within  lot lines. 2) Meet all MDH requirements. 3) CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property. 4)  Lodging tax for LOW County must be paid retro to 9/20/18___________________________ 

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 ( )

February 6, 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 McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Head.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

With no further business for the Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning  Commission.  

Adjournment: M/S/P