May 3, 2023 

7:00 P.M. on May 3, 2023 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Nancy Dunnell, Ken  Horntvedt, Monica Dohmen and Dave Marhula. Absent Member: 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, with changes to move the zoning and ssts ordinance discussions to the end  of the meeting–Tom/Wes. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 1, 2023- Motion to approve- Dave/Monica. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – Old Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #23-04CU by Jason and Christina Draper: A tract of land  described as the West 330’ of the S2SE4SE4, Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-one  (161) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (McDougald), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 22.07.44.021. 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 short-term vacation rental in a Rural  Residential (R2) Zoning District. 

Mr. and Mrs. Draper were present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed concerns regarding the septic system, egress windows, the wood stove heating,  and the well test results. The board then moved onto the findings of fact and decision.  

Name of Applicant: Jason and Christina Draper Date: May 3, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land described as the West 330’ of the S2SE4SE4, Section Seven (7),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 22.07.44.021. 

Project Proposal: 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 short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential (R2) 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? Rural Residential 

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

Why or why not? Application of permit process 

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

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) 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? Based on inspection 

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? Large enough area 

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? Existing 

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 parking 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Dependent on sewer inspection and expansion 

2. CUP terminates upon sale or transfer of property 

3. All other requirements per application 

4. No rental until sewer inspection 

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/Wes. All in favor.  

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-05CU by Daniel Crompton: That part of  the South 500’ of the SE¼SW¼ lying westerly of Bostic Creek except that part lying within Block 3, of  Walleye Retreat Plat, in Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID#  19.21.34.071. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of 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 for the purpose of a rip rap project. This portion of Bostic  Creek is considered part of Lake of the Woods which is a General Development Lake. Mr. Crompton was present for the meeting to discuss the request with the board and answer any questions.  He discussed a brief history of the property and historic rip rap that has been done in the past, as well as  DNR permissions that he has already received for work below the Ordinary High Water-Level. The main  concern is shoreline protection, especially following the high water from the previous year. Dan Powers, a  concerned resident, had a few concerns that were discussed with the applicant and the board. The property  has several conditional use permits already granted that were discussed as well.  

Name of Applicant: Daniel Crompton Date: May 3, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: The South 500’ of the SE¼SW¼ lying westerly of Bostic Creek except that part lying  within Block 3, of Walleye Retreat Plat, in Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.21.34.071. 

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) yards of material within the shore impact zone Bostic  Bay of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of a rock riprap project. Lake of the Woods is a General Development  lake.  

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

Why or why not? 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? Remain the same 

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? Bostic Creek 

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? Based on DNR requirements 

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

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

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

Why or why not? Bostic Creek 

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. CUP includes future maintenance 

2. Must follow DNR standards 

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/Wes. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Preliminary Plat of Hooper Creek West by Hooper Creek Investments, LLC: A  parcel of land located in Government Lot (One) 1 and (Five) 5, and that portion of the SE¼NW¼ lying  north of Highway 172, all within Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North,  Range Thirty-one (31) West (Baudette) Parcel ID# 24.18.12.010. Applicant is requesting to create eight  (8) tracts for a residential development. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment. Jon Waibel was present to discuss the preliminary plat and to answer any questions from the board.  

The Planning Commission recommended the combining of Lots 1 and 2 for buildability, access and lot area purposes.  There were also a few considerations from the Recorders Office and Highway Department that were mentioned and  discussed.  

Motion to approve- Tom/Wes. All in favor.  

Planning Commission – Old Business 

– Consideration of Amendments to the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. Discussion topics include Short Term Vacation Rental criteria/new section, new density criteria, and  considerations around septic compliance inspections upon sale or transfer of property.  

– Update on the Draft Amendments to the Lake of the Woods County SSTS Ordinance. Recommended approval once MPCA variance decision is made regarding empty tank criteria for inspections in remote/  hard to access areas (Angle Inlet, Islands, private property with no public access roads…etc.).  

Motion to Adjourn at 9:58 PM- Tom/Monica. All in favor. 

May 4, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on May 4, 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, Marshall Nelson 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 with amendments. Board would like to discuss new  business first and then move onto old business. -Marshall/Ken. All in favor.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 6, 2022- Motion to approve- Ken/Dave. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Tom Mio received notification regarding Driftwood Acres Final Plat.  

Board of Adjustment: No New Business  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Final Plat of Driftwood Acres by L&S Investing, LLC: A tract of land  located in Government Lots Three (3), Four, (4) and Five (5) all within Section Seven (7),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#  24.07.32.009. Applicant is requesting to create twelve (12) tracts for a residential development.  The Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment. 

Corey Steinbach, property owner, was present to discuss the approval of the final plat. The board  asked the owner questions in regards to the road (specs, construction, completion, easements,  emergency access…etc.), the present structures that need to be moved, additional lot considerations,  and a few typos that were found on the plat. The county surveyor needs to complete his final plat  check and get any corrections or changes completed prior to the creation of the mylars.  

Motion to approve presenting the final plat to county board – Ken/Wes. All in favor, Tom abstained.  Planning Commission: Old Business 

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-11ZC by Tod & Connie Barrow: West half (1/2) of the  Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Thirty-four (34), Township One  Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-Five (35) West – Parcel ID# 04.34.11.010.  Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance as allowed by Section 1206. The amendment would change the classification for the  property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District for  the purposes of allowing a permanent structure to be located on the property for residential  purposes. 

Tod and Connie Barrow joined via phone. Connie explained the current situation, the cabin is  completed on their property and now just needs to be moved, she is in the process of contacting locals  at the Angle who are going to assist her in trying to locate her property like the NW Edge Riders  snowmobile club, and the ice bridge Facebook page (ice road?). The board asked if they have  contacted the Red Lake Band to discuss crossing their property to access theirs, she has not yet but  will do so. The board also asked if she had contacted the boarder patrol in regards to obtaining access  to their property via the border cut, she has not discussed that with the boarder patrol but intends to do  so. The realtor who sold the property to the Barrow’s indicated that access was attainable, as they have hunted on the property numerous times, and that it was a residential parcel with no restrictions  in terms of building. Genereux Realty out of Theif River Falls sold the property to the Barrows. The  board clarified to the Barrows that if they decide to recommend changing the zoning to the County  Board, they are not guaranteeing access to their property. The board then moves on to the findings of  fact and decision.  

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: Rural Residential in area 

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification? _X¬_Yes ___No 

Comments: Rural Residential or Special Protection 

3. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood? __¬_Yes _X_No Comments: No change 

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? ¬_Yes _X_No 

Comments: No change 

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to  accommodate the proposal? __¬_Yes _X_No Comments: No change 

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: Will not change 

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

Comments: No changes 

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood? __¬_Yes _X_No 

Comments: Will not 

Conditions:  

1.) Must complete site building by 7/1/2023 

2.) Must show photo of completed structure on site to Josh Stromlund and Scott Head 3.) Must obtain access permission from Red Lake Band to cross their property 4.) Must obtain access permission from US Customs to use Border cut for access 5.) Property will revert back to Special Protection if cabin is not on site by 7/1/2023 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. 

Approve with Conditions – Dave/ Wes. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-01CU by Jon Meikle: Northwest quarter (NW  ¼) Northwest quarter (NW ¼) of Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West — Parcel ID# 19.28.22.000. Applicant is requesting an  After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods  

County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore 

impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards outside of the shore impact zone of Bostic  Creek for the purpose of constructing a private drive. Bostic Creek is a Tributary River segment.  

Jim Meikle joined via phone to discuss the request. He has no immediate plans for the property. He was  given some free fill and placed it on the property last year (summer construction season 2021). There was an existing well that has been placed on the property and electricity for up to four (4) campers to be  placed on the property for friends or relatives to use. They also placed a dock on the property, again there  is no set plans for the future use of the property. There are no plans for the installation of a septic system  at this time. The SWCD and County will meet the Meikle’s out on site to discuss the wetland issues with  the fill when scheduling and weather allows. Correspondence was received from Brent Mason (DNR  Area Hydrologist) and Dan Compton (neighbor in favor of the request). Board then moves onto 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? Shoreland development 

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? Sediment barrier 

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? It 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 ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Will be working with DNR, SWCD, and LOW County Land and Water  Planning departments 

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? County Road 8 Access 

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

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

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 ( X ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? None planned 

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? 

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Has well – no sewage treatment planned 

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? Minimal increase- private use 

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 ( ) Why or why not? Not needed- 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? None 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? On site 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1.) Work with SWCD, DNR, and Land and Water Planning for fill redeposition, wetland protection,  and erosion control 

2.) CUP also includes boat ramp if requested 

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/Marshall. All in favor.  

Motion to Adjourn at 8:09PM – Monica/Nancy. All in favor. 

May 5, 2021

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on May 5, 2021 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken  Horntvedt, Dave Marhula Reed McFarlane and Marshall Nelson. The following members were  absent: Wes Johnson. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund,  Richard Corle, Connor Ambrose, Travis Barclay, Brian Kabat, and Brian Ney. 

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: April 7, 2021 M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #21-04 by Kristine Hawkins: Lot 2, Block 1, Harris  Addition, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range  Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 19.63.01.020. Applicant is requesting a variance  Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct a  platform at less than the required ten (10) foot property line setback; construct an addition  at less than the required seventy-five (75) foot Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL)  setback from Lake of the Woods; and a variance from Section 603 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct a platform that will exceed the required  fifteen (15%) of the existing structure setback from the Ordinary High-Water Level  (OHWL) of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development lake. 

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner was present to come to the table and explain their request. Mr.  Ambrose approached the table and explained he was the representative for this request. Mr.  Ambrose explained that the property has been in the family for years and they are looking to  update the property consistent with other improvements that have occurred in the area. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Ambrose ensued. They discussed the lot size, setback  requirements, addition locations and the Wheeler’s Point Sanitary District. 

With no further discussion from the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any  objections. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE

Name of Applicant: Kristine Hawkins Date: May 5, 2021 Parcel #: 19.63.01.020 Variance Application #: 21-04V

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? Currently residential. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remains residential. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? 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) Additions cannot exceed proposed sketch. 

2) Completed by 12/31/22. 

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 ( ) 

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

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-07CU by Tillman Infrastructure,  LLC, on behalf of Richard and Teresa Humeniuk: The SE¼SW¼, Section Twelve  (12), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel ID# – 31.12.31.080. 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). 

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner or a representative was present to come to the table and explain  their request. Mr. Brian Kabat came to the table and explained he was the representative for the  project. He explained that this request is part of the nationwide First Net communication project  

being conducted to assist in emergency response. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Kabat ensued. They discussed tower height, lighting, and possible leases from other communication  vendors. 

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any  objections. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Tillman Infrastructure, LLC, on behalf of Richard and Teresa Humeniuk  Date: May 5, 2021 

Location/Legal Description: The SE¼SW¼, Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty  (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel ID# – 31.12.31.080 

Project Proposal: 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). 

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? Communication and safety network. 

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

Why or why not? Will increase safety. 

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 change. 

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

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type  and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Adjacent to a County Road. 

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

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) 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 ( ) 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: Follow FCC and FAA guidelines. 

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: M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane. All in favor, none  opposed.  

– Consideration of Final Plat of Hooper Creek: A parcel of land located in Government  Lots (One) 1, (Five) 5, and (Six) 6 all within Section Eighteen (18), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West. Applicant is requesting to  create sixteen (16) tracts for a residential development. 

Mr. Mio asked if a representative was present from Hooper Creek LLC was present and to come  forward and explain the request. Mr. Brian Ney stated he could be the representative for Hooper  Creek, LLC. Mr. Ney provided a brief history of the proposed subdivision; however, wasn’t  aware of the deficiencies with the submittal of the final plat. Discussion between the Board and  Mr. Ney ensued. They discussed the deficiencies and how they could be rectified. 

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio asked the Board of what  they wanted to do. The Board felt the deficiencies should be adequately addressed prior to  making a recommendation to the County Board. 

Motion to Table the Final Plat: M/S/P Marhula/Nelson. All in favor, none opposed. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-08CU by T & A Rentals, LLC: Lot 6,  Block 1, Rainy River Retreat, Section Twenty-four (24), Range One Hundred Sixty-two 

(162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#: 19.62.01.060. 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 transient rental in a Residential  Development (R1) Zoning District. 

Mr. Mio asked if a representative was present from T & A Rentals, LLC was present and to  come forward and explain the request. Mr. Travis Barclay stated he was the landowner. Mr.  Barlcay provided a brief history of the proposed request and future plans in the neighborhood.  Discussion between the Board and Mr. Barclay ensued. They discussed the rental of both sides  of the duplex, parking, occupancy limits, quiet hours and criteria regarding resort status. 

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any  objections. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: T & A Rentals, LLC Date: May 5, 2021 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 6, Block 1, Rainy River Retreat, Section Twenty-four (24),  Range One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  

West – Parcel ID#: 19.62.01.060 

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  transient rental in a Residential Development (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? Housing and 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? 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? Adjacent to Pickeral Trail. 

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? Sewer system. 

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 on sewer 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? Parking in front of unit. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) CUP for North end of duplex only. 

2) Must meet MDH requirements. 

3) Terminates on transfer or sale. 

4) Must pay lodging tax. 

5) Quiet time 10:30 pm to 6 am. 

6) Must meet State Fire Code. 

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: M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane. All in favor, none opposed. With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:07 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Head/Nelson

May 6, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on May 6, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Dave Marhula, Scott Head, Tom Mio and Ken Horntvedt. Reed McFarland attended via conference call. 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/Head 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 4, 2020 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Planning Commission – Old 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. 

Greg Hennum attended the meeting by conference call and explained the request for a seasonal  campground.  

Mr. Mio opened up the meeting to questions from the board. Discussion then ensued between the  board and Mr. Hennum. Members of the board expressed concern over the placement of the  fence on the property line. Discussion then turned to the proposed dump station. 

Mio then opened the meeting up to public comment. Multiple letters from the public were read  into the record.  

Discussion between Mr. Hennum and the Commission ensued.  

Mr. Marhula made a motion to move on to the Findings of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: __J&L Hennum Inc_________________________ Date: _May 6, 2020_____ 

Location/Legal Description: The Vacated Plat of Jesme’s Addition to Riverview Section Twenty four (24), Township One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#:  19.51.00.010; 19.51.00.070; 19.51.00.180

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance operate Commercial Planned Unit Development in a Commercial Recreation 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? In a commercial district. 

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

( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Public sewer and private water and based upon density calculation. 

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? Larger trees to remain and will not change. 

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of  rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO  ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and  existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO  

( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? Campsite lot parking – easy county road access. 

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

Why or why not? Commercial/recreational. 

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? Public sewer. 

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? Private well and public sewer 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 (X) NO  ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Eight (8) foot high fence/ground up. 

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? On site plan. 

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 camp sites. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) Fence to be off property line adequate for maintenance 

2) Must meet new density level (23) 

3) Approved for year-round use 

4) Must meet MDH requirements and approval

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 ( ) 

_____________________________________ 

Tom Mio 

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. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Final 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  (6) tracts to accompany the Sportsman’s Eagle Ridge Common Interest Community as  lots for storage. 

Greg Hennum then explained the request. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Hennum.  

Mr. Stromlund commented that the answers to the boards questions were answered by the  declarations. 

Motion to approve: M/S/P Mcfarlane/Marhula 

– Consideration of Preliminary Plat of Hooper Creek: A parcel of land located in  Government Lots (One) 1, (Five) 5, and (Six) 6 all within Section Eighteen (18),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West. Applicant is  requesting to create sixteen (16) tracts for a residential development. 

Jon Waibel then explained the request. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Waibel.  

Mr. Stromlund discussed the impacts of wetland on the proposed plat and the construction of the  road. He stated that the applicant was proposing a road that exceeded the requirements of the  ordinance. 

Mio then opened the meeting up to public comment. Multiple letters from the public were read  into the record. 

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

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:02pm.  Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt

May 2, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on May 2, 2018 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P McFarlane/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 4, 2018 

M/S/P G. S. Levasseur/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

  • Marhula indicated that he would abstain from the vote regarding Conditional Use #18- 08CU 

Planning Commission: 

  • New Business 
  • Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-02CU by Michael  Gamache: The S½SW ¼ of Section 33, Township 161 North, Range 31 West (Baudette),  Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel Number 24.33.33.000. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to allow the movement of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of  material to expand the clay pad and to stockpile clay, topsoil, granite, rock, sand and  gravel (earthen material) within the shoreland area of Kelly Creek while maintaining a  buffer. Also, the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section  401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a commercial  business consisting of renting storage containers and parking in a Rural Residential (R2)  Zoning District. 

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

Mr. Gamache explained that he would like to expand a pad currently on the property, stockpile  material on his pad and place storage containers on the property and rent them out. He explained  that parking is intended to be for large equipment (semi-trailers) that is in the area for large  projects.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Gamache. Buffers and drainage were discussed. 

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: _Michael Gamache Date: May 2, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: The South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section Thirty-three  (33), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31)  

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Sections 902 and 401-C of the Lake  of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to expand clay pad, stockpile earthen  materials within the shoreland are of Kelly Creek and rent storage containers and parking spaces.  

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? Allowing some commercial development. 

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

Why or why not? Drainage and parking issues 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? Addressed in conditions. 

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage  features, and vegetative cover? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Also addressed in conditions. 

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? In conditions. 

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? In conditions. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Adjacent to County Road. 

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

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

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

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant  adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?   YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Off County Road and parking on pad. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 1) Maintain 100’ buffer to Kelly Creek. 2)  Any area within the 100’ buffer needs to be sloped to a minimum of 4 to 1 and seeded with  perennial grasses. 3) Signage limited to one 8’x8’. 4) Existing drainage must be maintained.  

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( x ) Denied ( ) Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions.

Motion seconded by S. Lavasseur. 

All in favor, motion passed.  

  • Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-03CU by Grant &  Savanna Slick: A tract of land in Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred  Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) (Baudette), Lake of the Woods County,  Minnesota – parcel ID# 24.29.22.021. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit,  as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to  allow the operation of a commercial business consisting of transient short-term rental of  an existing structure within the shoreland area of the Winter Road River and in a Rural  Residential District (R2). The Winter Road River is a tributary river segment. 

Mio asked Mr. and Mrs. Slick to come to the table and explain their request. Mr. Slick explained that they would like to rent out their property as a short-term vacation rental.  Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. and Mrs. Slick. 

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Grant and Savanna Slick Date: May 2, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) 

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? Existing residential. 

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

Why or why not? No change. 

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

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

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

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

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No new access needed, access via Co Rd. 

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

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

Why or why not? Existing and vacation rental. 

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

Why or why not? In 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? Not affected. 

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

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change. 

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

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

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 parking. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) Septic compliance inspection.  

2) Apply for State and Fed. ID Tax numbers and collect and pay lodging taxes.  3) CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property. 

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

Motion made by S. Lavasseur to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by McFarlane. 

All in favor, Marhula abstained, motion passed.  

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

Adjournment: 

M/S/P Head/McFarlane, meeting adjourned at 8:01 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