January 5, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on January 5, 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- Dave/ Marshall. All in favor.

Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 3, 2021- Motion to approve- Ken/ Dave. All in favor.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None

Board of Adjustment: New Business

– Consideration of Variance #22-01V by Doug Trupish: Lots 5, 6, 7, Block 2, East Pine Creek Plat, Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-five (35) West — Parcel ID# 02.51.02.050. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow a structure that will not meet the required 10-foot lot line setback. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Mr. Trupish was unable to attend in person so connected with the board remotely via teleconference. Patrick Onstead was also present to describe the request as the potential purchaser of the lot in question. Doug explained that he intends to sell the southern two lots to Mr. Onstead with the existing shed. As the property sits now the structure is conforming but once the southern lots are sold, the structure would become non-conforming, hence the reason for the variance. The two applicants in which this variance would affect the most are both present and neither party has any objection to the variance. Clarification was provided by the board to a Mr. Bloomquist who had received a letter in regards to the variance, once clarification was given Mr. Bloomquist had no opposition to the request.

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? Existing building

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? Existing building and common ownership of multiple lots

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Existing building and lots have been under common ownership for a very long time

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

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Existing building and common ownership Condition(s):

1) This variance applies to the existing 16’ x 20’ structure only

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-Dave/ Marshall. All in favor.

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

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

Planning Commission: New 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.

At the site visit yesterday it was difficult for the board members to understand or see what was going on with the snow cover. The board would like to request the applicant to table this request until at least May/June. The applicant was not present at the meeting so no further discussion could occur.

Motion to table request until next meeting or until Spring if the applicant agrees- Dave/ Monica. All in favor.

Motion to Adjourn at 7:37PM – Marshall/ Nancy. All in favor.

January 6, 2021

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 4, 2020 – M/S/P Marhula/Nelson

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

– None

Planning Commission – New 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 explained that they felt their first was a success and were not aware of such a large number of complaints from neighbors.

Discussion between the Commission and the Slicks ensued. They discussed, at length, the complaints from the neighbors. The Slicks discussed the rules that they would put in place to prevent the issues from arising again including addressing guns on the property and quiet hours. They also discussed guest capacity, septic capacity and zoning.

Mr. Mio noted several written requests from the public for the record. Mr. Mio had those present who had also written a letter to read their letter and explain their position. Mr. Mio read the letters of those not present in to the record.

Mr. Mio then opened the meeting to comments from the public. Several members of the public spoke in opposition to the 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: Grant & Savanna Slick_________________ Date: January 6, 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? _County Support in the past_________________________________

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 Rd #75________________________________________

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___Remains same as 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? _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? __No change____________________________________________

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 Rd #75 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 ( ) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied (X) January 6, 2021

_____________________________________

Date Tom Mio

Chair, Planning Commission

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

Motion to Deny: M/S/P Nelson/Head. Nelson, Johnson, Head: in favor. Horntvedt, Mio: opposed. Marhula: abstained. Motion passes.

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Nelson/Head

January 8, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on January 8, 2020

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 6, 2019

M/S/P McFarlane/Johnson

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

– None

Board of Adjustment – New Business

– Consideration of Variance #20-01V by Ballard’s Resort Inc: The South 75 feet of Lot 8, and the North 33 feet of Lot 7, Riverview Plat, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, and Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.50.00.070. Applicant is requesting a variance as required by Section 1012 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to replace an existing structure with a new structure that will exceed the allowable density within the shoreland area of the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment.

Gary Moeller came forward to explain the request. Mr. Moeller explained that they would like to replace the current structure with a 12 unit complex: one structure with twelve, 1 bedroom units. They would be adding 18 beds to their resort. They plan to do this project in phases, but are seeking permission for the entire improvement now. Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Moeller. Common area, cooking facilities, number of stories and density were discussed.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further discussion. Hearing none, Mio 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: Ballard’s Resort, Inc. Date: January 8, 2020 Parcel #: 19.50.00.070 Variance Application #: 20-01V

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ____Resort area_______________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

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? ________Resort area_____________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _________Shape and size of lot_____________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ____Shape and size of lot________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality?

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ___Will not. Remains resort area____________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations?

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ___Update to current standards for ADA etc. Replacement of an old building_________________________________________________________________

Condition(s): __Plan completed by 12/31/2025, Setback may not exceed alignment with Sportsman’s Villas___________________________________________________________________________________

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 ( )

January 8, 2020 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion to approve with conditions: McFarlane.

Seconded by Marhula.

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.

Mio asked for motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting. M/S/P McFarlane/Nelson Mio asked for a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting. M/S/P McFarlane/Marhula Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-01CU by S & J Real Estate, LLC: Government Lot Six (6), Section Thirty-six (36), Range One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 06.36.44.000. 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 business consisting of a short-term transient rental in a Rural Residential District (R2).

Mr. Moeller also explained this request. They currently use the Island for shore lunches during the summer and would now like to rent it overnight. He explained that they would like to operate a short-term rental on Kirk Island, for 7 or more days at a time. They only plan to rent in June, July and August. He explained that someone from the business is usually out there every day during those months so they will be checking in on the renters while they are out there. Discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Moeller. Septic system, number of bedrooms, and the neighboring Special Protection parcel were discussed.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further discussion. Hearing none, Mio moved on to the Findings of Facts.

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

Name of Applicant: S & J Real Estate, LLC Date: January 8, 2020

Location/Legal Description: Government Lot six (6). Section Thirty-six (36), Range One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 06.36.44.000.

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a 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? ___Resort/recreation 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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _____With conditions______________________________________

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ____Shoreline___________________________________________

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? ___Resort rental________________________________________

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? ___With conditions_____________________________________

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? ___With conditions___________________________________

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? __In place/no change___________________________________

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

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

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

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __Septic inspection and must meet standards, CUP stays with current owner, must meet MDH standards that apply_______________________

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 ( )

January 8, 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: McFarlane

Motion to second: Marhula

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes.

Motion to keep officers the same. M/S/P Nelson/Johnson

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

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.

January 9, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on January 9, 2019

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 5, 2018

M/S/P McFarlane/Head

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

– None

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-01CU by MLK Holding Company Inc.: The West 100 feet of the W½NE¼; The East 100 feet of the West 200 feet of the South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; The East 200 feet of the West 400 feet of the South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; the W½NE¼ Less Deeded, all within Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, and the SW¼SE¼ less the West 100 feet in Section Thirteen (13), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID#s: 19.24.12.010, 19.24.12.011, 19.24.12.020, 19.24.12.000 and 19.13.43.000. 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 winter access road to Lake of the Woods; storage shed for off-season equipment storage and storage of fish houses in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

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

Mr. Kinsella explained that he would like to operate an ice road for their clients who stay at his resort, Border View Lodge. They have increased business and bought Wildwood Inn, bow called Settlers Point, as overflow to increase business. He explained that equipment and work wise allowing clients to use their own wheel houses on Border View Lodge’s existing road. The will only take wheel houses by reservation and are planning to limit it to 15-18 wheel houses at a time.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Kinsella and the Board. Fish house storage, accommodating changing client needs, road logistics and garbage volume were discussed.

Mio read a letter into the record from Gary Moeller opposing the request.

Several members of the public expressed concerns about the road, current/future use of Lake of the Woods and the health of the fishery.

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

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

Name of Applicant: MLT&T, LLC and MLK Holding Company Inc. Date: January 9, 2019

Location/Legal Description: The West 100 feet of the W½NE¼; The East 100 feet of the West 200 feet of the South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; The East 200 feet of the West 400 feet of the South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; the W½NE¼ Less Deeded, all within Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, and the SW¼SE¼ less the West 100 feet in Section Thirteen (13), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID#s: 19.24.12.010, 19.24.12.011, 19.24.12.020, 19.24.12.000 and 19.13.43.000.

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a winter access road to Lake of the Woods; storage shed for off-season equipment storage and storage of fish houses 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? _Resort Development Area________________________________

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

Why or why not? _Adding to existing road and monitored by applicant____________

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? _Cannot access from 172, ice road access already exists_________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Rural residential_______________________________________

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

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___See conditions_______________________________________

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) Signage to include wordage that road is for private use of Border View Lodge only. Not a public access

2) Limited to 18 wheelhouse clients

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 ( )

January 9, 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 the request with conditions.

Motion seconded by Horntvedt.

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission. Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head, meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Josh Stromlund

January 9, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on January 9, 2019