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

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Nancy  Dunnell, Ken Horntvedt, Marshall Nelson, Monica Dohmen, and Dave Marhula. Others present  were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund. Wes Johnson removed himself from  the Planning Commission for all requests due to the conflict of interest.  

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve agenda-Ken/Dave. All in favor.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 2, 2021- Motion to approve- Dave/Marshall. All in  favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment: No New Business  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-03CU by Lake Area Construction,  Inc.: SW ¼ NW ¼ in Section Twenty-five (25), Township One-hundred Sixty-one (161)  North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 22.25.23.000. Applicant is requesting a  Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of  aggregate mining in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).  

Rex Block was present to discuss the request. Landowner briefly described the ridge and  approximated about 10 acres of 18”-24” of usable material was located on the property. With no  other public correspondence, the commission moved onto the finding of fact.  

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? Aggregate mining. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

Why or why not? Will alter topography. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Vegetative cover to be removed, later replaced when pit closed. 

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

Why or why not? Private road? 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A  ( ) 

Why or why not? Isolated. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage  disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A  (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

______________________________________________________ 

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types,  uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( )  N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project  proposal from adjacent properties? YES (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 ( ) 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:  

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

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-04CU by Weston Johnson: NE ¼ SW  ¼ -Parcel ID# 28.16.31.000, N ½ NW¼, Less Deeded, S ½ NW ¼ – Parcel ID#  28.16.21.000, and W ½ NE ¼ – Parcel ID# 28.16.12.000 in Section Sixteen (16),  Township One Hundred-Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive and commercial use of the property  consisting of aggregate mining, washing, and bituminous material, in a Rural Residential  Zoning District (R2).  

Wes Johnson was present to discuss the project. The land is primarily pasture land and once the  material is removed the land will be converted back to pasture land for animal grazing. A  neighbor was present and had some questions regarding where the material would be extracted  from.  

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? Aggregate mining. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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? Private road and County Road. 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( )  N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Farmland. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage  disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( )  N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

______________________________________________________ 

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types,  uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( )  N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

Why or why not? Natural vegetative breaks. 

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:  

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

Approved as Presented (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) Approve as Presented- Dave/ Monica. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-05CU by Olson Construction, LLC.: NW ¼ NW ¼, Less the East 165.5’ in Section Twenty-three (23), Township One  Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West- Parcel ID# 28.23.22.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive and commercial use of  the property consisting of aggregate mining, washing, crushing, and bituminous material,  in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2). 

George Olson was present to discuss this request. The neighbor to this request had some  concerns that they presented. After discussion the commission moved to the findings of fact.  

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? Aggregate mining. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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 roads two sides. 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( )  N/A ( ) 

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

Why or why not? Berms along County Road #3. 

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:  

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

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

Motion to Adjourn at 8:05PM – Dave/Nancy. All in favor. 

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

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 3, 2021 – M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #21-01V by Gregg Hennum: Lot 14 Block 1 Birch  Acres Section Twenty-four (24), Range One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  

Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#: 19.61.01.140. Applicant is requesting a  Variance as required by Sections 1012 and 1013 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance to exceed allowable density and impervious surface coverage  in the non-shoreland area of a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District. 

Mr. Mio asked Mr. Hennum to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Hennum explained that he  has challenges with staffing at his resort due to lack of housing in the area. He would like to  construct small housing units for staff close to his resort. The proposed units are small, efficiency  units with minimal space requirements.  

Discussion between the Board and Mr. Hennum ensued. They discussed construction, length of  renting, stormwater management and occupancy.  

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Gregg Hennum Date: March 3, 2021 Parcel #: 19.61.01.140 Variance Application #: 21-01V 

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? _Development in Growth Corridor______ 

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted  by the official control?  

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Housing__________________ 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Already residential____________ 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Lack of housing in area_____ 

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? __Need housing______________ 

Condition(s): __Completed by 12/31/2025 based on property sketch provided. For long term rental  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 ) DENIED ( ) 

____3/3/21____________ ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

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

With no further business in front of the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio entertained a  motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting. 

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head. All in favor, none  opposed. 

Mr. Mio entertained a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting.

Motion to open the Planning Commission meeting: M/S/P Marhula/Head. All in favor,  none opposed.  

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-03CU by Gregg Hennum: Lot 14  Block 1 Birch Acres Section Twenty-four (24), Range One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#: 19.61.01.140. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to establish a Residential Planned Unit  Development in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District. 

Minimal discussion between the board and the applicant ensued. They discussed above ground fuel tank storage. 

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

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

Name of Applicant: _Gregg Hennum______________________ Date: _March 3, 2021______ Location/Legal Description: _Lot 14, Block 1, Birch Acres Subdivision___________________ Project Proposal: _Residential PUD in R1 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? Residential housing in 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? Stormwater to be addressed. 

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? See #2. 

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 from Fishery Road. 

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

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? Wheeler’s Point Sanitary District. 

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 and Sanitary 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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? If required. 

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? Fence on NE side. 

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 plan. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __________________________________ 

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

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

 March 3, 2021 _____________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion to Approve with conditions: M/S/P Nelson/Marhula, All in favor, none opposed. Motion  passes.  

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:33 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Nelson/Marhula

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on March 4, 2020 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 5, 2020 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – Old Business 

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

Brandon Peterson of Powder River Development came forward opted to speak after listening to  public comments.  

Mr. Horntvedt opened up the meeting to public comments. Members of the public expressed  opposition to the request. They expressed concern over placement of the tower, property value  and health concerns. Alternate tower sites were proposed by the public. Multiple letters from the  public were read into the record in opposition to the request. One letter of support from AT&T  was read in to the record. 

Discussion between Mr. Peterson, the public and the Commission ensued. They discussed the  placement of the tower, FCC regulations 

Mr. Horntvedt moved on to the Findings of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: __AT&T; Powder River Development Services LLC_____ Date: _March  4, 2020_____

Location/Legal Description: The NE ¼ NE ¼ Less Deeded; NW ¼ NE ¼, Section Nine (9), Range One Hundred Fifty-eight (158) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#:  43.09.11.000_______________ 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance operate a communications tower 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? _Meets requirements______________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Improve communications__________________________________ 

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? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal  system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? 

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x )

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from  adjacent properties? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Fencing and 100’ x 100’ area______________________________ 

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? _signage required_________________________________________ 

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: Must meet FCC guidelines for  communication towers, must meet FAA guidelines for communications towers_________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) 

_____________________________________ 

Ken Horntvedt 

Acting Chair, Planning Commission

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

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. 

– Consideration of Preliminary Plat Common Interest Community #4 A Planned  Community Eagle Ridge First Supplement: a 2.26-acre tract in the SE corner of  Government Lot Eight (8), Section One (1), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167)  North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Oak Island). Applicant is requesting to create six  tracts to accompany the Sportsman’s Eagle Ridge Common Interest Community as lots  for storage. 

Mr. Stromlund commented on the issues with this plat from the last meeting. He stated that the  issues have been addressed by the applicant and their surveyor.  

Motion to Approve: M/S/P Nelson/Johnson 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-03CU by J & L Hennum, Inc.: The  Vacated Plat of Jesme’s Addition to Riverview in Section Twenty-four (24), Township  One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West. Applicant is  requesting 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 recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation  Zoning District. 

The applicant submitted a letter to postpone his application until next month, the letter was read  into the record. 

Motion to table: M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Motion to close Planning Commission meeting 

Motion to open Board of Adjustment meeting 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #20-02V by Mike and Bonny Edin: Lots 5 and 6, Birch  Drive, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range  Thirty-four (34)W, Parcel ID# 02.52.01.050. Applicant is requesting a variance from  Section 501.2.2 and 605 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to split two  contiguous non-conforming lots of record and allow the impervious surface to exceed  25% on Lot 5. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Mr. & Mrs. Edin came forward to explain their request. They would like to split his 200’ x 200’  into two 100’ x 200’ lots. He explained that there are two residences on this lot and that they  have a buyer interested in one of the lots.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and the Edins. Structures, septic systems and setbacks  were discussed. Mr. Stromlund explained the impervious surface coverage and why a variance is  required.

Hearing no more discussion on the variance, Horntvedt 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: Michael and Bonny Edin Date: March 4, 2020 Parcel #: 02.52.01.050 Variance Application #: 20-02V 

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? _Existing parcels___________________ 

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 sizes__________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Original plats and existing buildings___ 

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? _Original plat, existing buildings______ 

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 ( )

___3-4-2020_________________ _____________________________  Date Ken Horntvedt 

Acting Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to Approve as presented: Marhula/Nelson 

With no further business, Horntvedt entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:19pm.  Adjournment: M/S/P Head/Nelson