7:00 P.M. on July 12, 2023 

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 7, 2023- Motion to approve- Dave/Tom. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

Consideration of Conditional Use Application #23-08CU by Gary and Barbara Hokanson: A tract of land  in Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34)  West (Lakewood) – Parcel ID# 14.05.31.060. 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 ten (10) cubic yards of  material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development lake. 

Gary and Barb Hokanson were present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact  and decision.  

Name of Applicant: Gary and Barbara Hokanson Date: July 12, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One Hundred  Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West (Lakewood) – Parcel ID# 14.05.31.060 

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 ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreline protection.

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

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? No change. 

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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

If all answers to the Findings of Fact-Criteria are either “Yes” or are “Not Applicable” to the request, the  criteria for granting the conditional use permit have been met. The conditional use permit will maintain the  goals of safety, health, and general welfare of the public.  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: None 

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

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-09CU by William and Tamara Yon: Lot 2,  Block 1, Driftwood Acres, Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one  (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID# 24.64.01.020. 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 ten (10) cubic yards of  material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River to repair shoreline damage. The Rainy River is an  Agricultural River Segment. 

William Yon was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board  discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

Name of Applicant: William and Tamara Yon Date: July 12, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, Driftwood Acres, Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred  Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID# 24.64.01.020 

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 ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of the Rainy River to repair shoreline damage. 

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

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

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? Per DNR Rip Rap plans 

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? No Change 

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Reason for application 

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 specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1. Meet the Department of Natural Resources requirements for rip rap. 

2. Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Measures 

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

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

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-10CU by Kurt and Dianna Kluzak: A tract of  land in Government Lot 3, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range  Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.25.31.111. Applicant is 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 vacation  rental in a Rural Residential (R1) Zoning District. 

Kurt and Dianna Kluzak were present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed the information in the application. Kurt noted that they only plan to rent to a  maximum number of 4 people for a VRBO. Estimate is 140’ of drain-field in the ground as per Kurt. The board  then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

Name of Applicant: Kurt and Diana Kluzak Date: July 12, 2023  

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Government Lot 3, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.25.31.111 

Project Proposal: Applicant is 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 vacation rental in a Rural Residential (R1) Zoning  District. 

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

Why or why not? Recreational 

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

Why or why not? Will meet county requirements for short term rental

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? Riverview Drive 

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

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? 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 ( ) 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? Existing Well and Sewage Treatment System 

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

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

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

• Maximum occupancy to be based on septic system size 

• Follow Short Term Rental requirements as per submitted application 

• Approval terminates upon sale or transfer of property 

• Meet Department of Health Guidelines if applicable 

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

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

Motion to close the Planning Commission: Marshall/Nancy. All in favor. 

Motion to open the Board of Adjustment: Nancy/Dave. All in favor. 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

Consideration of Variance #23-01V by Paul Colson: The North 346 feet of the East Half of the Northwest  Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (E1/2NW1/4SW1/4), Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred  Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West (Angle), Except the Easterly 30 feet of said  E1/2NW1/4SW1/4 – Parcel ID # 02.29.32.030. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 502.2 of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to create five (5) lots less than the minimum width of 150 feet for  non-riparian lots within the shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development  lake. 

Karen and Paul Colson joined the meeting via phone call to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact  and decision. 

Name of Applicant: Paul Colson Date: July 12, 2023 Parcel #: 02.29.32.000 Variance Application #: 23-01V 

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? Recreational Development 

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? Residential 

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size 

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size 

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Will remain the same 

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size 

Condition(s):  

• Survey of lots to be completed 

• Every structure to be built to a minimum elevation of 1066.2 (88 Datum) to top of slab 

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.  

Consideration of Variance #23-02V by Adrian’s Resort: A 3.43-acre tract in Government Lot Three (3),  Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West  (Wheeler) – Parcel ID #19.24.41.020. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.5 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the applicant to replace an existing non-conforming cabin with a  new cabin at less than the required setback of one-hundred (100) feet from the Ordinary High-Water Mark of  the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment. 

Brian Ney was present to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the  information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

Name of Applicant: Adrian’s Resort Date: July 12, 2023

Parcel #: 19.24.41.020 Variance Application #: 23-02V 

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 Development 

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? Shoreland location, early development 

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot location 

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change 

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot location, structure’s age 

Condition(s):  

• No closer than line of site to the Rainy River 

• Size of cabin to be built to the size and location as presented in the application 

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.  

Consideration of Administrative Appeal #23-01A by Derek and Britny Johnson and Sharon and Paul  Sayler: Lots 21 and 22, Wabanica Beaches Subdivision, Section Twelve (12), Township One-Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID # 23.51.00.210. Applicant is appealing an  administrative order requiring the applicant to adhere to the conditions placed upon granting Variance #20-07  by the Board of Adjustments. 

Derek Johnson was present to discuss the appeal and answer question from the board of adjustment. Derek  stated that the scope of the project changed and he’d like to come to a new resolution to get around having to  build a mound system. Derek stated that for financial reasons, they didn’t move ahead with a two-story garage  and went with attic trusses instead for storage. Derek suggested turning the septic tank into a holding tank. 

Derek doesn’t want to deal with the back lot for a septic system as he feels it is wetlands. Derek decided to sell  the back lot instead. Derek was reminded that there was an agreement in place prior to rebuilding the garage  that he isn’t fulfilling. Tom reminded Derek that just the idea of rebuilding a garage would still have triggered  the need to update the current septic system. The two-story garage was not the trigger for the septic upgrade, the  building of the garage at all was the trigger. The board noted that a holding tank is not an option due to having a  well on the property. Derek noted the home is a three bedroom. An option is to repurchase the back lot that was  illegally sold as a non-conforming lot. 

Tom made a motion to deny the appeal request and to upgrade the septic system as agreed upon by December  31, 2024. Motion seconded by Marshall. 

Tom suggested the board consider adjusting the time for lot viewals to 3PM due to growing number of requests  requiring a lot viewal. 

Motion to Adjourn at 8:45 PM- Tom/Nancy. All in favor. 

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

7:00 P.M. on July 6, 2022 

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 1, 2022- Motion to approve-Dave/ Wes. All in favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

Board of Adjustment: New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #22-04V by Steven & Marissa Theis: A tract in Government Lot 1, East of the Winter Road  River and North of State Highway 172, less deeded in Section Twenty (20), Township One-hundred Sixty-one (161) North,  Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 24.20.12.050. Applicants are requesting a variance from Section 503.6 of the  Lake of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow a structure that will not meet the required one-hundred (100) foot setback  from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of Winter Road River. Winter Road River is a Tributary River segment.  

Steven Theis was present and discussed the request with the board. The board then moved on to the findings of fact and  decision.  

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? Personal expansion in a residential 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? 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 right of way. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and right of way. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change – remains the same. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and right of way. 

Condition(s): No closer than thirty-five (35) feet to road right of way. 

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/Wes. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Variance #22-05V by Bonny & Michael Edin: Lots Nine (9) and Ten (10), Block One (1), Angle  Outpost Acres, in Section Twenty-six (26), Township One-hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West –

Parcel ID#’s: 02.57.01.090 and 02.57.01.100. Applicants are requesting a variance from Section 605.1 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the subdivision of two contiguous non-conforming lots of record in the  shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.  

Michael and Bonny Edin were present and discussed the request with the board. The board then moved on to the findings of fact  and decision.  

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential lots platted in 1981. 

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 – still residential. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size platted in 1981. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Platted lots. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 

Condition(s): None.  

IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET. 

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of Adjustment. This is  in accordance with Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

Motion to approve as presented – Dave/Nancy. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Variance #22-06V by Katherine Houser: A tract in Government Lot 4, in Section Seventeen (17),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.17.23.030. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 603 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow construction of a  deck that exceeds fifteen (15) percent of the existing setback of the structure from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL)  of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.  

Mr. Houser was present and discussed the request with the board. The board then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential recreation. 

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? Residential – no change. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lake setback. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lake setback. 

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? Lake setback. 

Condition(s): 

1. Cannot encroach any farther than drawing submitted. 

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/Wes. All in favor.  

Motion to Close Board of Adjustment/ Open Planning Commission – Nancy/Dave. All in favor.  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-10CU by Steve Cooper: A tract in the Northeast quarter of the  Northeast quarter described as follows: The East 400’ of the North 480’ in Section Twenty-five (25), Township One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID#18.25.11.010. Applicant, as required by  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance Section 401C, is requesting the commercial operation of a short-term  transient rental in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).  

Steven and Jolynn Cooper were present to discuss their request with the board. The board then moved on to the findings of  fact and decision.  

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 development. 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Residential recreational development. 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 8 and private driveway 

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

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? Well has been tested and septic will be brought up to code if needed. 

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the  project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________ 14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? 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 (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Not needed. 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) Applicant to work with Land and Water Planning Office to get septic up to code in two (2) year time period.

2) Occupancy to be based on septic system capacity. 

3) CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property. 

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) 

Motion to Approve with Conditions- Dave/Monica. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance Revisions 

o Articles I – VIII (One – Nine) 

LWPO Director Josh Stromlund discussed ordinance revisions with the board. No action took place at this time as this was  more of a question/answer and discussion. The board asked Stromlund if he would draft language for compliance inspections to  be completed upon sale/transfer of property in the county. Again, no action took place in regards to the ordinance at this time.  

Motion to Adjourn at 10:07 PM- Wes/Ken. All in favor. 

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

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Ken Horntvedt,  Marshall Nelson, Reed McFarlane, Tom Mio, and Scott Head. The following members were  absent: 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 – M/K 

With a motion to move the Election of Chair and Vice Chair to the end of the meeting.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 2, 2021- Motion to approve R/K 

With a motion to change Marshall from Present to Absent.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #21-06V by Dale Verbout: Lots 43 and 44, Block 1,  Schmidt Waag Subdivision, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163)  North, Range Thirty-three (33) West, Parcel ID# 16.53.01.430. Applicant is requesting a  variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to  allow construction of a structure at less than the required seventy-five (75) foot setback  from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of Lake of the Woods and at less than the  required ten (10) foot line setback. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Tom asked if landowner was present, Dale Verbout was in attendance to discuss the claim. Josh  Stromlund provided the board with a new map that indicates the adjacent neighboring properties  (to the north and south) are both approximately 72-73 (seventy-two to seventy-three) feet from  the Ordinary High-Water Mark. Josh also indicated that this map was not to be taken with  complete certainty, as the aerial imagery can show slight variation to what is actually present.  Dale also remarked about getting allowed a 12% (twelve percent) impediment on the allotted 75  (seventy-five) foot set back allotment for the Lake. Josh indicated that since he was starting with  a bare lot that this allotment, which is actually 15% (fifteen percent) did not apply here. With the  75 (seventy-five) foot ordinary high water mark setback and the proposed structure length with  garage and house combined at 66 (sixty-six) feet that would be hard to fit a septic system into the  lot on the back. Dale also inquired about where his property line extended out to, Josh indicated  that the survey pins that were placed when the plat was created were placed based on where the  water level was at that time. Dale indicated that his property is a 220 (two-hundred twenty) foot  long lot. 75 (seventy-five) plus 66 (sixty-six) is 141 (one-hundred forty-one) feet, which leaves  79 (seventy-nine) feet for a septic system, minus the 10 (ten) foot lot line setback, so only 69  (sixty-nine) feet. Dale indicated that would be enough room for the septic system so he didn’t  think the ordinary high water mark setback would be of further issue or discussion. Dale then  inquired about his lot line setback on the north to be reduced to 5 (five) feet to fit the proposed structure width of 34 (thirty-four) feet while still allowing access to the lake on the south lot line.  The neighbor to the north has a garage located within 1 (one) foot from the property lines. Dale  was unsure of when this property was constructed. Dale also inquired about how the mound  system would affect his neighbor’s property in terms of runoff from the mound system. Josh  indicated that there would be slight run off potential towards the neighbors from what falls on  top of the mound. Reed stated a personal opinion on the matter. First, it was a 50 (fifty) foot lot,  and it was that size when you purchased the property. You knew what the setbacks would be  when you bought it since the setbacks have no changed in that time. You had a compliant  structure when you purchased the property that did meet all setbacks. We want to try and uphold  all zoning ordinances and setback requirements when we can. The other side of it, those are very  small lots and we have a variance process, so that variances can be granted in certain  circumstances. When variances are granted, they are usually tied to conditions and there is  usually good reasoning to support the issuance of a variance. Dale then indicated that he had  talked to both of his neighbors in the north and south and neither neighbor opposed his variance,  which is why they didn’t send any correspondence or be present for the meeting because they  had no objections to his claim. He also indicated that with the 5 (five) foot infringement on the  lot line setback he wasn’t sure if construction work would have to cross the property line or not  to complete the work when he was building. Then the board asked Dale if he had thought about  plans for proposed building if this variance was to no be granted. Dale indicated that they could  change their plan of a garage to more of a carport style and move more of the rooms in the house  to the second floor. Dale also indicated that the purpose of this home would be to sell his current  home in Roseau and make this more of a residence then just a cabin. The board presented the  public correspondence, a letter from Lisa and Paul Scheirer, which discusses the setback from  the ordinary high-water mark, but that part of the variance has been revoked. All board members  have received and read this correspondence. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISIONSUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Dale Verbout Date: July 7, 2021 Parcel #: 16.53.01.430 Variance Application #: 21-06V 

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential area with small 50’ 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? Residential – no change. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? 50’ lot size. 

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

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

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 

Condition(s): 

1) Completed by December 31, 2024. 

2) Variance for 5’ setback on north side of property 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 (X) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS ( ) DENIED ( )  July 7, 2021 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/R. All in favor, none opposed. 

Board of Adjustment – Election of Chair and Vice Chair.  

Reed informed the board that he has purchased a new property in Texas and has sold his property  in Lake of the Woods County and will now only be in the County during the summer months but  not a full-time resident and will be missing more than four meetings. Therefore, Reed intends to  resign from the board. Reed will need to contact Cody Hasbargen so that he will be able to  nominate a replacement for the board. 

Election of Chair- Tom Mio – Motion to approve M/R All in favor.  

Election of Vice Chair: Dave Marhula- Motion to approve R/S All in favor. Motion to adjourn- M/S All in favor, none opposed.  

Meeting adjourned at 7:46 PM. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on July 1, 2020 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 6, 2020 – M/S/P Marhula/Nelson 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #20-03V by Dennis Sobolik: Lot 2, Block 1, Boundary  Commission Plat No. 1 in Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West. Applicant is requesting a variance from  Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow an  addition that will not meet the required seventy-five (75) foot setback from Lake of  the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Mio ask if Mr. Sobolik was present. Kelly Plaine introduced himself and indicated he was the  representative for Mr. Sobolik. Mio ask Plaine to come to the table and explain the proposal. 

Plaine indicated he was the son-in-law of Sobolik and they are looking at a number of upgrades  on the property included screening in the deck on the lakeside of the cabin. Sobolik is 88 years  old and built the cabin in 1964. We thought it would be good for him, as he is not as mobile as he  used to be, to screen in the deck so he can enjoy time out there with his puzzles. It would be a  nice addition to the cabin and Sobolik in his remaining years. 

Questions and discussion ensued between the Board and Plaine regarding construction of the  screen porch. Upon completion of the discussion, Mio asked if there were any comments from  the floor. 

Mio recognized Peter Brown. Brown indicated he was neutral on this request; however, he  applied for the same request and his was denied. If this variance is approved, he wants a  reconsideration of his request. 

The Board explained that each request is different and on its own merits. He has every right to  apply again if he so chooses. 

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Board moved on to  the Findings of Facts.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Dennis Sobolik Date: July 1, 2020 Parcel #: 14.53.01.020 Variance Application #: 20-03V 

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential/lakeshore property. 

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? Existing footprint and eroding shoreline. 

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Will not, no change. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Economics not part of request. 

Condition(s):  

1) Must stay within exact footprint of existing deck. 

2) Completed by 12/31/20. 

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 ( )

July 1, 2020 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to approve with conditions: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:15pm.  Adjournment: M/S/P McFarlane/Marhula

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on July 10, 2019 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 5, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– Wes Johnson – Steve Cyrus Request 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-06CU by Elizabeth Carlson: The  North 620 feet of the NE¼ of the NE¼ of Section Thirty (30), Township One  Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, Parcel ID#  02.30.11.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 401D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a  commercial planned unit development consisting of a recreational vehicle camping  park located in a Commercial Recreation Zoning District. 

Mio asked Ms. Carlson to come to the table and explain her request. 

Ms. Carlson explained that she would like expand her current recreational vehicle campground  with 17 additional recreational vehicle campsites to her existing 17-unit campground. 

Discussion ensued between Ms. Carlson and the Board. The board asked questions regarding  how the sewage would be handled for the campground. Ms. Carlson explained that she has  talked with Loren Horner to construct a mound system that will meet code. Discussion then ensued about the need for a storm shelter and also if the proposed addition would meet the  allowed density. 

Land and Water Planning director Josh Stromlund mentioned that the proposed addition will  need to have a storm shelter of evacuation plan. Also, Mr. Stromlund stated that Ms. Carlson’s  proposed addition was well below the density that she is allowed.  

Mio then read a letter into the record from Jim Merickel and Lorraine Carlson. Mio then asked if there was anybody present that would like to comment on the request. Doug  Herzog then stated that he supported the request and had verbal consent from other neighbors  that they supported the request.

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: Elizabeth Carlson Date: July 10, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: The North 620 feet of the NE¼ of the NE¼ of Section Thirty (30),  Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, Parcel ID#  02.30.11.000. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit development consisting of a  recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation Zoning District. 

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

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Meet Minnesota Department of Health standards. 

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? No change. 

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? May or may not be 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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change. 

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?  

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Use existing road.

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

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 area. 

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

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

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? New system to be designed and installed. 

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? Working with Department of Natural Resources for additional spaces for docking. 

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? ________________________________________________________________ 

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? On site. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: Meet Minnesota Department of Health and  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources requirements.

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 ( ) 

 July 10, 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 Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Nelson. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-07CU by Thomas and Erin Olson:  A tract of land in Government Lot 3, Section Thirty (30), Township One Hundred  Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West, Parcel ID# 16.30.32.020. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401C of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate short-term vacation rental in  a Rural Residential District (R-2). 

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

Mr. Olson explained that he would like to operate a Short-term Vacation Rental. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Olson and the Board. The board asked questions regarding the  septic system on the property. Mr. Olson explained that he was going to have a new system  installed. The board then asked if Mr. Olson would be managing the property himself or having  somebody manage it for him. Mr. Olson explained that he would be managing it himself. 

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: Thomas and Erin Olson Date: July 10, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Government Lot 3, Section Thirty (30), Township  One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West, Parcel ID# 16.30.32.020.

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 commercial business consisting of  transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Rural Residential 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 area. 

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

Why or why not? Upgrade of system (septic). 

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? To use existing roads and driveway. 

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

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

____________________________________________________________________ 

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

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 designed for project. 

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? 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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No greater than 4’ x 8’. 

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: CUP expires on sale or exchange of property. 

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 ( ) 

 July 10, 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 McFarlane to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-08CU by Gregg Hennum: A tract  of land in Government Lot 1, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.25.21.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401D of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit  development consisting of recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial  Recreation Zoning District. 

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

Mr. Hennum explained that he would like to construct a 34-site recreational vehicle campground  that would be seasonal with playground and dumpsters on site. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Hennum and the Board. The board asked questions regarding  how the sewage would be handled for the campground. Mr. Hennum stated that he will hopefully  get approval to connect into the Wheelers Point Sanitary District.  

Density was then discussed regarding how many units would be allowed. Based on current  density standards Mr. Hennum would be allowed 28 units. It was discussed that the Land and  Water Planning office is looking to change density standards that may allow for 2 additional  units however this is still in the works and may or may not be approved. 

Mio then asked if there was anybody present that would like to comment on the request. Joyce  Beckel then asked about if the possibility of if the sites would be allowed to be used in the  winter. Mr. Hennum stated that the campground rules do not allow winter use and that the water  will be shut off and drained and the electricity will be turned off for the winter and that the  campground will not be plowed in the winter time. 

Al Thompson, owner of Lake of the Woods Marine to the west, stated that his concern is a fence  up to his property. Mr. Thompson stated that he and Mr. Hennum had spoken about a fence and  agreed that it would need to be constructed to be 8’ tall and be enclosed all the way to the bottom  so no pets could get under it into his business. Mr. Thompson also stated that he could speak as  to the possibility of connection to the Wheelers Point Sanitary district. He stated that the district  is putting in stubs for business that are outside of the current district to connect after 1 year  assuming they have the capacity.

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: Gregg Hennum Date: July 10, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Government Lot 1, Section Twenty-five (25),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID#  19.25.21.010. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit development consisting of a  recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation Zoning District. 

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use  Plan? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? 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? To meet Minnesota Department of Health standards. 

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

_______________________________________________________________ 

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and  vegetative cover? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? 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? Access off Bur Oak Road.

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

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? Designed into project. 

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? New well, septic or sanitary sewer district. 

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

_________________________________________________________________ 

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

_________________________________________________________________ 

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent  properties? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Natural on the North side and 8’ fence on 3 other sides. 

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? In application a 3’ x 5’ with lights 

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. 8’ to ground fence on south and west sides also extend east side fence to ground.  2. Approved to current density standards.  

3. Must meet Minnesota Department of Health regulations. 

4. Must meet 3000 square foot lot size. 

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 ( ) 

 July 10, 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 Nelson. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

Motion made by Horntvedt to close Board of Adjustment. 

Motion seconded by Head 

All in favor, motion passed. 

Mio opened the Board of Adjustment meeting. 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

Consideration of Variance #19-03V by Steven and Deborah Cyrus: A tract of  land in the NE¼ of the NW¼, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.28.21.040.  Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 603 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a deck at a fifty (50) foot  setback which exceeds the allowable 15% of the existing setback of the structure to  Bostic Creek. The Bostic Creek is a Tributary River Segment 

Mio asked Mr. Cyrus to come to the table and explain the request. Mr. Cyrus stated that he wants  to construct a 12’ deck on his new trailer house. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Cyrus and the Board. The Board asked about the location of the  deck and if it could be moved to make it not encroach as far towards the river.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Steven and Deborah Cyrus Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 19.28.21.040 Variance Application #: 19-03V 

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 setback. 

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? Residential/resort area. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Size and shape of property. 

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

YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Request is outside of regulations. 

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? See #3. 

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 ) 

July 10, 2019 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by Nelson to approve the request.  

Motion seconded by Horntvedt. 

McFarlane, Mio, Marhula, and Head opposed. Motion denied. 

– Consideration of Variance #19-04V by Steven Theis: A tract of land in the  NE¼SE¼ of Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North,  Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 24.18.31.000. Applicant is requesting a  variance from Section 501.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to create a lot of less than five (5) acres in size in a Rural Residential District (R-2). 

Mio asked Mr. Theis to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Theis explained that he is looking to sell the east side of Hooper Creek which is 1.8 acres  that does not meet the 5-acre minimum lot size to sell in a rural residential district. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Theis and the Board. The Board asked about why he can’t sell a  5-acre tract. Mr. Theis then explained that he would like to build on the other side of the river  sometime in the future. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Steven Theis Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 24.18.31.000 Variance Application #: 19-04V

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Variance meets intent. 

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? Residential. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Hooper Creek – not public waters. 

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

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? Hooper Creek and land layout. 

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 ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

 July 10, 2019 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Horntvedt to approve the request.  

Motion seconded by Nelson  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Variance #19-05V by Peter Brown: Lot 5, Block 3, Rocky Point  Townsite, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range  Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 14.50.03.050. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow an  addition that will not meet the required 75’ setback from Lake of the Woods and will  not meet the required 10’ setback from the lot line. Lake of the Woods is a General  Development Lake. 

Mio asked Mr. Brown to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Brown explained that he would like to enclose his existing deck on the front of the cabin. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Brown. The board explained that one issue that  they had with the request is that if they were granting the variance it would allow Mr. Brown to  be closer to the water than any other property in the area and would cause all the others to want  to be closer as a result.  

Mio then read a letter into the record from Renee Chapman. 

Mio then asked if anybody in attendance had any comments on the request.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Peter Brown Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 14.50.03.050 Variance Application #: 19-05V 

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Encroaches on setbacks. 

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? Residential. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Adjacent properties are at approximately the  same setback. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Landowner request of a change. 

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

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Setbacks. 

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 ) 

 July 10, 2019 _____________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to deny.  

Motion seconded by Head 

All in favor, Nelson opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Variance #19-06V by Tim Stauffenecker: The South ½ of Lots 8  and 9, Rocky Point Townsite, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three  (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 14.50.05.081. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to allow a new structure that will not meet the required 20’ setback from  the Right-of-Way (ROW) of Beach Lane NW. Lake of the Woods is a General  Development Lake. 

Mio asked Mr. Stauffenecker to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Stauffenecker explained that he would like to bring in a new modular home to replace the  existing house that was constructed in 1947. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Stauffenecker. The board asked who maintains  Beach Lane NW. Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund explained that Beach Lane  NW is a road that was created during the platting of the area and is not maintained by the county.  

The board then asked Mr. Stauffenecker why he could not move the house farther back in his  yard and give him a larger front yard instead of having a back yard. Mr. Stauffenecker explained  that it would be difficult to use the existing buildings. 

The board then asked Mr. Stauffenecker what he planned to do with septic from the new  structure. Mr. Stauffenecker then explained that he has been having problems with his existing  septic system and has no room for a mound system, and plans to install two concrete holding  tanks. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Tim Stauffenecker Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 14.50.05.081 Variance Application #: 19-06V

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? Variance with conditions will meet intent. 

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. 

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

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

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot Size__________ 

Condition(s): New building no closer to Beach Avenue than current building. 

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 ( ) 

 July 10, 2019 _____________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Head to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Johnson  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Variance #19-07V by Downrigger Properties, LLC: That part  of the Northeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty-one  (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West,  lying and being West of the center of the channel of Bostic Creek – Parcel ID#  19.21.31.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to construct a roofed pavilion that will not  meet the required 75’ setback from Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

Mio asked Karen Pierce to come to the table and explain the request.  

Ms. Pierce explained that they would like to put up a roofed structure over an existing cement  slab and use the roofed area for shore lunches. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Ms. Pierce. The board asked if the planned roof would  be shingled or if it would be sheet metal and if the planned structure would have any walls. Ms. Pierce explained that the structure is not planned to have any walls or be enclosed in any way  and that it would be a shingled roof to match the existing structures on site. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Downrigger Properties, LLC Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 19.21.31.000 Variance Application #: 19-07V

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/commercial property. 

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 activity. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location to shoreline. 

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

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 size and location. 

Condition(s): Roof only – can never enclose. Completed by 12/31/19. 

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 ( ) 

 July 10, 2019 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Nelson.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Variance #19-08V by Lyle and Pauline Longtin: A tract in the  NW ¼ of Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 14.05.31.040. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to construct a screened porch that will not meet the required 10’ setback  from the lot line. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

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

Mr. Longtin explained that they would like to put up a 12’ x 18’ Screen Poarch that would be  within a foot of the lot line.

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Longtin. The board then asked Mr. Longtin why  he could not move the cabin to meet the setback. Mr. Longtin stated that he would like to  preserve the open space of his existing property for his grandchildren to play in. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Lyle and Pauline Longtin Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 14.05.31.040 Variance Application #: 19-08V

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? Further encroachment on the lot line. 

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? Residential/seasonal use. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Has enough room to move the building. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Request for additional encroachment. 

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? See #1, #3, and #4. 

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 ) 

 July 10, 2019 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to deny the request.  

Motion seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

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

Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head 

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on July 10, 2019 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 5, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– Wes Johnson – Steve Cyrus Request 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-06CU by Elizabeth Carlson: The  North 620 feet of the NE¼ of the NE¼ of Section Thirty (30), Township One  Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, Parcel ID#  02.30.11.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 401D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a  commercial planned unit development consisting of a recreational vehicle camping  park located in a Commercial Recreation Zoning District. 

Mio asked Ms. Carlson to come to the table and explain her request. 

Ms. Carlson explained that she would like expand her current recreational vehicle campground  with 17 additional recreational vehicle campsites to her existing 17-unit campground. 

Discussion ensued between Ms. Carlson and the Board. The board asked questions regarding  how the sewage would be handled for the campground. Ms. Carlson explained that she has  talked with Loren Horner to construct a mound system that will meet code. Discussion then ensued about the need for a storm shelter and also if the proposed addition would meet the  allowed density. 

Land and Water Planning director Josh Stromlund mentioned that the proposed addition will  need to have a storm shelter of evacuation plan. Also, Mr. Stromlund stated that Ms. Carlson’s  proposed addition was well below the density that she is allowed.  

Mio then read a letter into the record from Jim Merickel and Lorraine Carlson. Mio then asked if there was anybody present that would like to comment on the request. Doug  Herzog then stated that he supported the request and had verbal consent from other neighbors  that they supported the request.

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: Elizabeth Carlson Date: July 10, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: The North 620 feet of the NE¼ of the NE¼ of Section Thirty (30),  Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, Parcel ID#  02.30.11.000. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit development consisting of a  recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation Zoning District. 

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

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Meet Minnesota Department of Health standards. 

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? No change. 

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? May or may not be 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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change. 

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?  

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Use existing road.

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

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 area. 

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

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

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? New system to be designed and installed. 

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? Working with Department of Natural Resources for additional spaces for docking. 

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? ________________________________________________________________ 

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? On site. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: Meet Minnesota Department of Health and  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources requirements.

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 ( ) 

 July 10, 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 Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Nelson. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-07CU by Thomas and Erin Olson:  A tract of land in Government Lot 3, Section Thirty (30), Township One Hundred  Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West, Parcel ID# 16.30.32.020. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401C of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate short-term vacation rental in  a Rural Residential District (R-2). 

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

Mr. Olson explained that he would like to operate a Short-term Vacation Rental. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Olson and the Board. The board asked questions regarding the  septic system on the property. Mr. Olson explained that he was going to have a new system  installed. The board then asked if Mr. Olson would be managing the property himself or having  somebody manage it for him. Mr. Olson explained that he would be managing it himself. 

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: Thomas and Erin Olson Date: July 10, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Government Lot 3, Section Thirty (30), Township  One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West, Parcel ID# 16.30.32.020.

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 commercial business consisting of  transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Rural Residential 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 area. 

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

Why or why not? Upgrade of system (septic). 

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? To use existing roads and driveway. 

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

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

____________________________________________________________________ 

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

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 designed for project. 

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? 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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No greater than 4’ x 8’. 

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: CUP expires on sale or exchange of property. 

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 ( ) 

July 10, 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 McFarlane to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-08CU by Gregg Hennum: A tract  of land in Government Lot 1, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.25.21.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401D of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit  development consisting of recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial  Recreation Zoning District. 

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

Mr. Hennum explained that he would like to construct a 34-site recreational vehicle campground  that would be seasonal with playground and dumpsters on site. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Hennum and the Board. The board asked questions regarding  how the sewage would be handled for the campground. Mr. Hennum stated that he will hopefully  get approval to connect into the Wheelers Point Sanitary District.  

Density was then discussed regarding how many units would be allowed. Based on current  density standards Mr. Hennum would be allowed 28 units. It was discussed that the Land and  Water Planning office is looking to change density standards that may allow for 2 additional  units however this is still in the works and may or may not be approved. 

Mio then asked if there was anybody present that would like to comment on the request. Joyce  Beckel then asked about if the possibility of if the sites would be allowed to be used in the  winter. Mr. Hennum stated that the campground rules do not allow winter use and that the water  will be shut off and drained and the electricity will be turned off for the winter and that the  campground will not be plowed in the winter time. 

Al Thompson, owner of Lake of the Woods Marine to the west, stated that his concern is a fence  up to his property. Mr. Thompson stated that he and Mr. Hennum had spoken about a fence and  agreed that it would need to be constructed to be 8’ tall and be enclosed all the way to the bottom  so no pets could get under it into his business. Mr. Thompson also stated that he could speak as  to the possibility of connection to the Wheelers Point Sanitary district. He stated that the district  is putting in stubs for business that are outside of the current district to connect after 1 year  assuming they have the capacity.

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: Gregg Hennum Date: July 10, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Government Lot 1, Section Twenty-five (25),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID#  19.25.21.010. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit development consisting of a  recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation Zoning District. 

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use  Plan? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? 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? To meet Minnesota Department of Health standards. 

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

_______________________________________________________________ 

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and  vegetative cover? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? 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? Access off Bur Oak Road.

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

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? Designed into project. 

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? New well, septic or sanitary sewer district. 

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

_________________________________________________________________ 

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

_________________________________________________________________ 

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent  properties? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Natural on the North side and 8’ fence on 3 other sides. 

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? In application a 3’ x 5’ with lights 

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. 8’ to ground fence on south and west sides also extend east side fence to ground.  2. Approved to current density standards.  

3. Must meet Minnesota Department of Health regulations. 

4. Must meet 3000 square foot lot size. 

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 ( ) 

 July 10, 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 Nelson. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

Motion made by Horntvedt to close Board of Adjustment. 

Motion seconded by Head 

All in favor, motion passed. 

Mio opened the Board of Adjustment meeting. 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

Consideration of Variance #19-03V by Steven and Deborah Cyrus: A tract of  land in the NE¼ of the NW¼, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.28.21.040.  Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 603 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a deck at a fifty (50) foot  setback which exceeds the allowable 15% of the existing setback of the structure to  Bostic Creek. The Bostic Creek is a Tributary River Segment 

Mio asked Mr. Cyrus to come to the table and explain the request. Mr. Cyrus stated that he wants  to construct a 12’ deck on his new trailer house. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Cyrus and the Board. The Board asked about the location of the  deck and if it could be moved to make it not encroach as far towards the river.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Steven and Deborah Cyrus Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 19.28.21.040 Variance Application #: 19-03V 

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 setback. 

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? Residential/resort area. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Size and shape of property. 

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

YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Request is outside of regulations. 

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? See #3. 

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 ) 

July 10, 2019 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by Nelson to approve the request.  

Motion seconded by Horntvedt. 

McFarlane, Mio, Marhula, and Head opposed. Motion denied. 

– Consideration of Variance #19-04V by Steven Theis: A tract of land in the  NE¼SE¼ of Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North,  Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 24.18.31.000. Applicant is requesting a  variance from Section 501.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to create a lot of less than five (5) acres in size in a Rural Residential District (R-2). 

Mio asked Mr. Theis to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Theis explained that he is looking to sell the east side of Hooper Creek which is 1.8 acres  that does not meet the 5-acre minimum lot size to sell in a rural residential district. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Theis and the Board. The Board asked about why he can’t sell a  5-acre tract. Mr. Theis then explained that he would like to build on the other side of the river  sometime in the future. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Steven Theis Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 24.18.31.000 Variance Application #: 19-04V

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Variance meets intent. 

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? Residential. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Hooper Creek – not public waters. 

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

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? Hooper Creek and land layout. 

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 ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

 July 10, 2019 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Horntvedt to approve the request.  

Motion seconded by Nelson  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Variance #19-05V by Peter Brown: Lot 5, Block 3, Rocky Point  Townsite, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range  Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 14.50.03.050. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow an  addition that will not meet the required 75’ setback from Lake of the Woods and will  not meet the required 10’ setback from the lot line. Lake of the Woods is a General  Development Lake. 

Mio asked Mr. Brown to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Brown explained that he would like to enclose his existing deck on the front of the cabin. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Brown. The board explained that one issue that  they had with the request is that if they were granting the variance it would allow Mr. Brown to  be closer to the water than any other property in the area and would cause all the others to want  to be closer as a result.  

Mio then read a letter into the record from Renee Chapman. 

Mio then asked if anybody in attendance had any comments on the request.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Peter Brown Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 14.50.03.050 Variance Application #: 19-05V 

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Encroaches on setbacks. 

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? Residential. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Adjacent properties are at approximately the  same setback. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Landowner request of a change. 

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

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Setbacks. 

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 ) 

 July 10, 2019 _____________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to deny.  

Motion seconded by Head 

All in favor, Nelson opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Variance #19-06V by Tim Stauffenecker: The South ½ of Lots 8  and 9, Rocky Point Townsite, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three  (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 14.50.05.081. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to allow a new structure that will not meet the required 20’ setback from  the Right-of-Way (ROW) of Beach Lane NW. Lake of the Woods is a General  Development Lake. 

Mio asked Mr. Stauffenecker to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Stauffenecker explained that he would like to bring in a new modular home to replace the  existing house that was constructed in 1947. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Stauffenecker. The board asked who maintains  Beach Lane NW. Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund explained that Beach Lane  NW is a road that was created during the platting of the area and is not maintained by the county.  

The board then asked Mr. Stauffenecker why he could not move the house farther back in his  yard and give him a larger front yard instead of having a back yard. Mr. Stauffenecker explained  that it would be difficult to use the existing buildings. 

The board then asked Mr. Stauffenecker what he planned to do with septic from the new  structure. Mr. Stauffenecker then explained that he has been having problems with his existing  septic system and has no room for a mound system, and plans to install two concrete holding  tanks. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Tim Stauffenecker Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 14.50.05.081 Variance Application #: 19-06V

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? Variance with conditions will meet intent. 

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. 

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

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

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot Size__________ 

Condition(s): New building no closer to Beach Avenue than current building. 

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 ( ) 

 July 10, 2019 _____________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Head to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Johnson  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Variance #19-07V by Downrigger Properties, LLC: That part  of the Northeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty-one  (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West,  lying and being West of the center of the channel of Bostic Creek – Parcel ID#  19.21.31.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to construct a roofed pavilion that will not  meet the required 75’ setback from Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

Mio asked Karen Pierce to come to the table and explain the request.  

Ms. Pierce explained that they would like to put up a roofed structure over an existing cement  slab and use the roofed area for shore lunches. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Ms. Pierce. The board asked if the planned roof would  be shingled or if it would be sheet metal and if the planned structure would have any walls. Ms. Pierce explained that the structure is not planned to have any walls or be enclosed in any way  and that it would be a shingled roof to match the existing structures on site. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Downrigger Properties, LLC Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 19.21.31.000 Variance Application #: 19-07V

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/commercial property. 

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 activity. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location to shoreline. 

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

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 size and location. 

Condition(s): Roof only – can never enclose. Completed by 12/31/19. 

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 ( ) 

 July 10, 2019 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Nelson.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Variance #19-08V by Lyle and Pauline Longtin: A tract in the  NW ¼ of Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 14.05.31.040. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to construct a screened porch that will not meet the required 10’ setback  from the lot line. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

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

Mr. Longtin explained that they would like to put up a 12’ x 18’ Screen Poarch that would be  within a foot of the lot line.

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Longtin. The board then asked Mr. Longtin why  he could not move the cabin to meet the setback. Mr. Longtin stated that he would like to  preserve the open space of his existing property for his grandchildren to play in. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Lyle and Pauline Longtin Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 14.05.31.040 Variance Application #: 19-08V

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? Further encroachment on the lot line. 

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? Residential/seasonal use. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Has enough room to move the building. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Request for additional encroachment. 

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? See #1, #3, and #4. 

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 ) 

 July 10, 2019 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to deny the request.  

Motion seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

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

Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head 

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on July 11, 2018 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Horntvedt/S. Levasseur 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 6, 2018 

M/S/P S. McFarlane/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission: 

Old Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-06CU by Ruth  Brunkhorst: Lot 3, Block 2, Boundary Commission Plat #1, Section 8, Township 163  North, Range 34 West (Lakewood), lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID#  14.53.02.030. 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 short-term vacation rental in a Residential District (R1). Lake of  the Woods is a General Development Lake.  

Chairman Mio read a letter from Mrs. Brunkhorst dated June 19, 2018 into the record stating that  she is withdrawing her request for a Conditional Use Permit. 

New Business 

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

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

Mio asked Mrs. Mayer to come to the table and explain her request. 

Mrs. Mayer explained that she would like to clean up the language in the paperwork so the new  buyers of the resort would still be able to rent out those cabins.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mrs. Mayer. The previous Conditional Use conditions  were discussed. 

Members of the public voiced comments and concerns about this request. It was brought up that  S & M Resorts, LLC will continue to be the owner of the property, since the new owners are  entering into a Contract for Deed which would potentially negate the need to change the  Conditional Use condition at this time.  

Motion made by G. Levasseur to table the request until the August 1, 2018 Planning  Commission meeting. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-08CU by JRF Properties,  LLC – Alan Fish: Lots 1-5, Block 1, Marina Drive Estates, Section Thirty-six (36),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Lake of the  Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel IDs# 19.70.01.010 through 19.70.01.050. Applicant  is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a commercial business  consisting of a seasonal camping area/RV Park in a Commercial-Recreation District. The  proposed project area is non-shoreland. 

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

Mr. Fish explained that he purchased these lots, which are zoned commercial and residential,  some of which he is placing houses on but some of the lots are small for individual residential  units. He feels the smaller lots are better suited for seasonal RV sites. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Fish. Density, length of rentals, signage and septic  were discussed. 

Mio stated that there was a letter regarding this property and read it into the record. 

Members of the public expressed concerns about this request. Covenants and restrictions  regarding commercial use of the lots was brought up by neighboring landowners. 

Motion made by McFarlane to table the request until the August 1, 2018 Planning  Commission meeting. 

Motion seconded by S. Levasseur. 

– Consideration of Petition to Amend the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance Application #18-01ZC by Gregg Hennum: A tract in NW corner of  Gov. Lot 1, less deeded, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.25.21.010. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Residential District (R1) to a Commercial Recreation District to allow applicant to establish a  Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting of an RV Campground/Park. 

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

Mr. Hennum explained that he has a long-term (three to five years) plan to create a campground  on his property and requires a zone change for that lot to make that a reality.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Hennum. Number of lots, fences, buffers and  sewage disposal were discussed.  

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

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

Lake of the Woods County  

Rezoning 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Gregg Hennum Date: July 11, 2018 Location/Legal Description: A tract in NW corner of Gov. Lot 1, less deeded Current Zoning Classification: Residential Proposed: Commercial-Recreation Parcel Number(s): 19.25.21.010 Application Number: 18-01ZC 

The Planning Commission shall consider all facts from all sources prior to submitting a  recommendation to the County Board relating to a proposed zone change. Its judgment shall be  based upon, but not limited to the following factors as applicable. 

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Land Use Plan? X Yes ___No Comments: Commercial expansion in a resort area/growth corridor. 

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning  classification? 

X Yes ___No 

Comments: Adjacent to other businesses/CUP. 

3. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood? 

 ___Yes X No Comments: Remains resort area. 

4. Is there a potential for public health, safety or traffic generation impacts based on  the proposed zone change and how will they be addressed? 

X Yes ___No 

Comments: Increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic, private water and sewer system. 

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities  be sufficient to accommodate the proposal? 

X Yes ___No 

Comments: Electric and phone – private water and sewer, other county services in place. 

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement  of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zoning district? 

 ___Yes X No Comments: No change. 

7. Has there been a change in the development in the general area of the property in  questions? 

 ___Yes X No Comments: 

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

neighborhood? 

 ___Yes X No Comments: Can’t determine – mixed residential/commercial/CUP area. 

Conditions: Must maintain a 30 foot natural state vegetative visual buffer along Burr Oak Road.

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners adopt the above findings and DENY /  APPROVE the application for a zone change be WITH / WITHOUT conditions. 

_____________________________________ July 11, 2018 Tom Mio Date Chair, Planning Commission 

The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners hereby adopt the above findings of  fact of the Lake of the Woods Planning Commission WITH / WITHOUT modification(s) and  DENY / APPROVE the application for a zone change WITH / WITHOUT special conditions. 

_____________________________________ ____________________ Ed Arnesen Date 

Chair, County Board of Commissioners 

Motion made by Marhula to approve the zone change request. 

Motion seconded by G. Levasseur. 

Mio, McFarlane, Horntvedt, Marhula, G. Levasseur, Head in favor. S. Levasseur opposed.  Motion passed. 

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

Adjournment: 

M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt, meeting adjourned at 9:46 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