February 7, 2024

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

February 7, 2024 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Monica Dohmen, Ken  Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Nancy Dunnell, and Marshall Nelson. Others present were Land and Water Planning Director  Josh Stromlund. Wes Johnson was absent. 

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Dohmen. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 3, 2024- Motion to approve – Marhula/Nelson. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Comission – New Business 

  • Consideration of Interim Use Permit #24-02IU by Walleye Empire, LLC: A parcel of land lying in the  Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4 SW1/4), Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.25.33.020. Applicant is requesting an Interim  Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short term vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). 

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

Name of Applicant: Walleye Empire, LLC Date: February 7, 2024 Location/Legal Description: See Attached Parcel Number: 19.25.33.022 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential (R1) Zoning District. 

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Development corridor. 
  2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This includes the following  items: 
    • Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • Fire extinguisher(s) 
    • Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows 
    • Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? See application. 
  3. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural residential and recreation. 
  4. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Private drive off Hwy 172 NW. 
  5. Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the  increased traffic is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Remain the same.
  6. Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Plenty of room onsite. 
  7. Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Adequate vegetation. 
  8. 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? No signage needed. 
  9. What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? See conditions. 
  10. Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? See application.  
  11. Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? See application.  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):  The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or transfer of the property, whichever occurs first. 

X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application. X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

X A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. 

X No on street parking is allowed. 

X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 

Additional Conditions are as follows:  

  1. Maximum of 3 people per Winter Agreement until upgraded sewer system. 
  2. Maximum of 9 people once sewer system is upgraded. 
  3. Maximum occupancy limited to septic system design. 
  4. Septic system upgraded by December 31, 2025. 

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

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

 February 7, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Nelson to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Marhula. All in favor, motion  carried. 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by Dunnell. All  in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:31 PM.

January 3, 2024

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

January 3, 2024 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Monica Dohmen,  Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Nancy Dunnell, Marshall Nelson and Wes Johnson. Others present were Land and  Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund. 

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Dohmen. All in favor. 

Election of Chair: Dohmen nominated Ken Horntvedt, Seconded by Dunnell. Motion passed. Election of Vice Chair: Mio nominated Marshall Nelson. Seconded by Marhula. Motion passed. Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 6, 2023- Motion to approve – Marhula/Johnson. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

  • Consideration of Variance #24-01V by Leroy Howard: Lot 3 and the West Forty-five (45) feet of  Lot 4, Block 2, Dawley Estates in Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North,  Range Thirty (30) West – Parcel ID# 31.53.02.030. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section  503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct a garage at less than the required  one hundred (100) foot setback from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of the Rainy River and  less than the required fifty (50) foot setback from the right-of-way of State Highway 11. The Rainy  River is an Agricultural River Segment. 

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

Name of Applicant: Leroy Howard Date: January 3, 2024 Parcel #: 31.53.02.030 Variance Application #: 24-01V 

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? Rural residential area. 
  2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official control? 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change. 
  3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 
  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? No change.
  6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 

Condition(s): None. 

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

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of Adjustment.  This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

 January 3, 2024 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to Approve as submitted – Marhula/Johnson. All in favor.  

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting – Nelson/Marhula. All in favor.  

Motion to open the Planning Commission – Mio/Dohmen. All in favor.  

Planning Commission – New Business 

  • Consideration of Interim Use Permit #24-01IU by Daniel Klis: Lot 2, Block 1, East Pine Creek,  according to the recorded plat thereof, in Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 02.51.01.020. Applicant is requesting an Interim  Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a  short-term vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). This portion of Pine Creek is  considered Lake of the Woods, a General Development Lake. 

Richard McKeever from Young’s Bay Resort was present at the meeting representing Daniel Klis to  discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the information in the  application. Five letters of correspondence regarding this application were presented for the record.  

Letters received were from Ralph and Tracy Gardner, Tim Murray, Todd Leake, Rick Finnie and Lance  Hapka. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Daniel Klis Date: January 3, 2024 Location/Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, East Pine Creek Plat Parcel Number: 02.51.01.020 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential Zoning District (R1). 

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Resort and recreation area. 
  2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This includes the following  items: 
    • Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms
    • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • Fire extinguisher(s) 
    • Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows 
    • Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Per application. 
  3. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural residential. 
  4. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Existing Road. 
  5. Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the  increased traffic is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No more than full time residence. 
  6. Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Onsite. 
  7. Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Nothing needed. 
  8. 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? ____________________________________________________________________________ 
  9. What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? 6 occupants. 
  10. Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Per application. 
  11. Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Per application. Reasonable in a residential area. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):  The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or transfer of the property, whichever occurs first. 

The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application.

The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application.

The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. 

No on street parking is allowed. 

If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 

Additional Conditions are as follows: None 

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

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

 January 3, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Nelson to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dohmen. All in favor,  motion carried. 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Marhula made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Dunnell. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:33 PM.

December 6, 2023

7:00 P.M. on December 6, 2023

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Monica Dohmen,
Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Nancy Dunnell, Marshall Nelson and Wes Johnson. Others present were Land and
Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.
Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.
Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 1, 2023- Motion to approve – Nelson/Dohmen. All in favor.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.
Planning Commission – New Business

  • Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-19CU by Leach and Associates, LLC: Tract
    in Government Lot 2 of Section Thirty-four (34), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range
    Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 03.34.24.040. 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 10 cubic
    yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage that
    occurred during the 2022 high water event. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
    Mary Leach was present via phone call at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board.
    The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.
    Name of Applicant: Leach and Associates, LLC Date: December 12, 2023
    Location/Legal Description: Tract in Government Lot 2 of Section Thirty-four (34), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight

(168) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 03.34.24.040

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 10 cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone
of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage that occurred during the 2022 high water event.
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ________________________________________________________________
4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative
cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ________________________________________________________________
5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Lakeshore.

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? ________________________________________________________________
7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Residential.

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

Why or why not? Lake of the Woods.

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 answers to the questions above, together with the facts supporting the answers and those other facts that exist in the
record, are hereby certified to be the Findings of the County Board of Commissioners.
The specific reasons for denial or conditions of approval are as follows:

  1. CUP also covers any future maintenance.
  2. Follow DNR guidelines for rock rip rap.
    Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( )

Motion made by Mio to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Nelson. All in favor, motion
carried.

  • Consideration of Interim Use Permit Application #23-01IU by Tracy and Sandra Pogue: Lot 1,
    Block 3, River Oaks Plat, Section One (1), Township One-hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range
    Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 23.52.03.010. Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit as
    required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term
    vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). Johnson Creek is a tributary river
    segment.
    Tracy Pogue was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board
    discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.
    Name of Applicant: Tracy and Sandra Pogue Date: December 6, 2023
    Location/Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 3, River Oaks Plat
    Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods
    County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential Zoning District (R1).
    1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? In the development corridor.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This includes the
following items:

  • Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms
  • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • Fire extinguisher(s)
  • Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows
  • Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? As per application.
3) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Rural residential.
4) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Oak Harbor Drive.
5) Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how
the increased traffic is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Previous residence.
6) Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property?

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? On site.
7) Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?

YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( )
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________
8) 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? No signage needed.
9) What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s location?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? See application.
10) Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Same as residential.
11) Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Same as residential.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):
X
The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or transfer of the
property, whichever occurs first.
X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application.
X The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application.
X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application.
X A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required.
X No on street parking is allowed.
X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements.
Additional Conditions are as follows: _______________________________________________________
The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board
of Commissioners that this proposal be:

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dunnell. All in favor,
motion carried.
With no further business before the Planning Commission, Marhula made a motion to adjourn and seconded by
Johnson. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:29 PM.

November 1, 2023

7:00 P.M. on November 1, 2023

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Monica Dohmen,
Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Nancy Dunnell, Marshall Nelson and Wes Johnson. Others present were Land and
Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.
Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.
Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Marshall/Johnson. All in favor.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 4, 2023- Motion to approve – Marhula/Dohmen. All in favor.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.
Planning Commission – New Business

  • Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-18CU by J&T Ferguson, LLC: Northeast
    Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE1/4SW1/4), West of Bostic Creek, Section Twenty-one (21), Township
    One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler)- Parcel ID # 19.21.31.000.
    Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County
    Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of
    the Woods and to move more than 50 cubic yards of material outside the shore impact zone of Lake of the
    Woods for the construction of a dike to protect the property from flooding. Lake of the Woods is a General
    Development Lake.
    Justin Ferguson was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board
    discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.
    Name of Applicant: J&T Ferguson, LLC Date: November 1, 2023

Location/Legal Description: Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE1⁄4SW1⁄4), West of Bostic Creek, Section
Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32)
West – Parcel ID# 19.21.31.000.

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods
County Zoning Ordinance to move more than 10 cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone
of Lake of the Woods and to move more than 50 cubic yards of material outside the shore impact zone
of Lake of the Woods for the construction of a dike to protect the property from flooding. 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? Shoreland 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 ( ) 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? No change.

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries?
YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative
cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Lake of the Woods, Bostic Bay.

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: ____________________________________________



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 ( )

November 1. 2023 _________________________
Date Ken Horntvedt
Chair, Planning Commission
Motion made by Nelson to approve the request as presented and seconded by Marhula. All in favor,
motion carried.
With no further business before the Planning Commission, Nelson made a motion to adjourn and seconded by Mio.
All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM.

October 4, 2023 

7:00 P.M. on October 4, 2023 

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 6, 2023- Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-15CU by Dennis Braaten and James Frohreich:  Tracts in Government Lot 4, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range  Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler)- Parcel ID # 19.17.23.020 and 19.17.23.010. Applicant is requesting a  Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move  more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline  damage and to move more than 50 cubic yards of material outside the shore impact zone for the construction of a  dike. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

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

Name of Applicant: Dennis Braaten and James Frohreich Date: October 4, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: Tract in Government Lot 4, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.17.23.020 and 19.17.23.010. 

Project Proposal: Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone  of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage and to move more than 50 cubic yards of material outside the shore  impact zone for the construction of a dike. 

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? Lake of the Woods shoreline. 

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

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

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

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Erosion protection for Lake of the Woods. 

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 (X) N/A ( ) 

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 ( ) 

Motion was made by Mio to approve the request as presented and seconded by Marhula. All in favor, motion  carried. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-16CU by Terry and Susanna Brateng: Lot 13,  Block 1, Riverside Plat in Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty one (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID#: 24.50.01.130. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as  required by Section 401 B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to use a Recreational Vehicle  (RV) in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District on Rainy River. Rainy River is an Agricultural River  Segment. 

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

Name of Applicant: Terry and Susanna Brateng Date: October 4, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 13, Block 1, Riverside Plat in Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred  Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID#: 24.50.01.130. 

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 use a Recreational Vehicle (RV) in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning  District on Rainy River. 

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

Why or why not? Recreational water frontage. 

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

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or  tributaries? YES ( ) 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? Riverside plat. 

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? Rainy River frontage. 

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

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Spell out 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 ( ) 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. Holding tank only allowed until well is drilled and approved septic system installed. 

2. CUP expires 12-31-2025 and camper must be removed. 

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 and seconded by Dunnell. All in favor, motion  carried. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-17CU by Dallas Schwandt (Nels Holte Agent): A  tract in Government Lot Three (3), Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-two (32) West- Parcel ID# 19.17.24.070 (For Reference Only). Applicant is requesting a  Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401 B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to 

allow a commercial use consisting of a private winter ice fishing access road to Lake of the Woods in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake 

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

Name of Applicant: Dallas Schwandt (Nels Holte Agent) Date: October 4, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: Tract in Government Lot Three (3), Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West- Parcel ID# 19.17.24.070 (For Reference Only) 

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 allow a commercial use consisting of a private winter ice fishing access road to  Lake of the Woods in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). 

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

Why or why not? Recreational 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 ( ) 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? No 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? County Road 4. 

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

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

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? 1 4×8 sign designating lake access will be placed on a seasonal basis. Dec 1 to April 30th

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? No parking on site. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1. CUP expires upon sale of property to others, except designated agent per application. 2. No parking or storage on access road or property. 

3. Signage must state that this is a private road only. 

4. No parking allowed on County Road 4. 

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 and seconded by Mio. All in favor, motion  carried. 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by Dohmen.  All in favor, meeting adjourned at 8:18 PM.

September 6, 2023 

7:00 P.M. on September 6, 2023 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:03 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Nancy Dunnell,  Wes Johnson, 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 – Marhula/Mio. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 2, 2023- Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-13CU by Dale Wang, et.al.: A tract in  Government Lot 4, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.17.23.050. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as  required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10)  cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage. Lake  of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Larry Houser was present at the meeting to discuss both requests and answer questions from the Planning  Commission. Houser indicated he is representing the family members that own both parcels and the work  conducted was by the same contractor. Stromlund provided a brief history of the parcels of property dated back  to the 2014 high water event. The Planning Commission discussed the information in the application. The board  then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

Name of Applicant: Dale Wang Date: September 6, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: Tract in Government Lot 4, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.17.23.050. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage. 

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

Why or why not? Shoreline restoration. 

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 ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Lake of the Woods Shoreline. 

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: None 

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

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-14CU by Katherine Houser: A tract in  Government Lot 4, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.17.23.030. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as  required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10)  cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage. Lake  of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Name of Applicant: Katherine Houser Date: September 6, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: Tract in Government Lot 4, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.17.23.030. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage. 

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

Why or why not? Shoreline restoration. 

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 ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Lake of the Woods Shoreline. 

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: None 

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

Approved as Presented (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) Motion to Adjourn at 7:16 PM- Mio/Johnson. All in favor. 

August 2, 2023

7:00 P.M. on August 2, 2023 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Marshall Nelson, Ken Horntvedt, Nancy Dunnell, Wes Johnson and Dave Marhula. Absent Member: Monica Dohmen. Others  present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund. 

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve–Marshall/Nancy. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 12, 2023- Motion to approve- Tom/Wes. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #23-03V by Christopher and Dawn Eklund: A tract of land located in the  Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE¼SW¼) Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID # 19.21.34.040. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a  structure to be placed within the required seventy-five (75) foot setback of Lake of the Woods and less than  the required ten (10) foot lot line setback. This portion of Bostic Creek is considered Lake of the Woods, a  General Development Lake. 

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

Name of Applicant: Christopher and Dawn Eklund Date: August 2, 2023 Parcel #: 19.21.34.040 Variance Application #: 23-03V 

Project Request: Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure to be placed within the required seventy-five (75) foot  setback of Lake of the Woods and less than the required ten (10) foot lot line setback. 

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: 

Project Request: Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure to be placed within the required seventy-five (75) foot  setback of Lake of the Woods and less than the required ten (10) foot lot line setback. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential in a commercial zoning district. 

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. Same footprint. 

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? No change. 

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

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

Condition(s): None 

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

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

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

Motion to Approve as submitted – Dave/Marshall. All in favor.  

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting – Tom/Wes. All in favor. 

Motion to open the Planning Commission – Marshall/Dave. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-12CU by Christopher and Dawn Eklund: A tract of  land located in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE¼SW¼) Section Twenty-one (21), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID # 19.21.34.040. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 6.3 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Floodplain  Ordinance to allow an alternative elevation method of the existing structure. This portion of Bostic Creek is  considered Lake of the Woods, a General Development Lake. 

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

Name of Applicant: Christopher and Dawn Eklund Date: August 2, 2023

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter  (SE1/4SW1/4) Section Twenty-one (21), Township One-hundred sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West – Parcel ID# 19.21.34.040. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 6.3 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Floodplain Ordinance to allow an alternative elevation method of the existing  structure. 

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

Why or why not? Recreational and residential. 

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

Why or why not? Structure stabilization. 

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

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

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

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 change. 

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

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 recreational cabin.

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

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1. Upgrading of well and septic system to be completed one year from approval. 

2. Lowest portion of the building must be at 1066.2 or higher. 

3. Meet all other applicable requirements per Lake of the Woods County Floodplain Ordinance. 

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 ( )

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-11CU by Jesse Mayfield and Steve Asplin: That  portion of Government Lot 9, Section Six (6), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West  (Gudrid) – Parcel ID# 31.06.44.020. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401 B of  the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a commercial activity consisting of a storage building in a  non-shoreland Residential Development Zoning District (R1). 

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

Name of Applicant: Jesse Mayfield and Steve Asplin Date: August 2, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: That portion of Gov. Lot 9 lying South and West of State Highway #11 and lying  South and East of County Road #35 in Section Six (6), Township One-hundred sixty (160) North, Range Thirty  (30) West – Parcel ID# 31.06.44.020. 

Project Proposal: Allow commercial activity consisting of a storage building in a non-shoreland Residential  Development Zoning District (R1). 

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

Why or why not? Development in area. 

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________ 

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including  sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( ) 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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? L/W County Road 35. 

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. CUP specific to this application only. 

2. No habitation. 

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 Adjourn at 7:42 PM- Tom/Marshall. All in favor. 

July 12, 2023

7:00 P.M. on July 12, 2023 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Marshall Nelson, Ken Horntvedt, Nancy Dunnell and Dave Marhula. Absent Member: Monica Dohmen and Wes Johnson. Others  present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund. 

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve–Marshall/Dave. All in favor. 

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

Planning Commission – New Business 

Consideration of Conditional Use Application #23-08CU by Gary and Barbara Hokanson: A tract of land  in Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34)  West (Lakewood) – Parcel ID# 14.05.31.060. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of  material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development lake. 

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

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

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

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage. 

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

Why or why not? Shoreline protection. 

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? No change. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: None 

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

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-09CU by William and Tamara Yon: Lot 2,  Block 1, Driftwood Acres, Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one  (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID# 24.64.01.020. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required  by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of  material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River to repair shoreline damage. The Rainy River is an  Agricultural River Segment. 

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

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

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

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of the Rainy River to repair shoreline damage. 

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

Why or why not? Shoreline Protection 

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Reason for application 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________ 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

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

2. Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Measures 

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

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

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-10CU by Kurt and Dianna Kluzak: A tract of  land in Government Lot 3, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range  Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.25.31.111. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as  required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term vacation  rental in a Rural Residential (R1) Zoning District. 

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

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

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

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential (R1) Zoning  District. 

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

Why or why not? Recreational 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X ) 

Why or why not? __________________________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? With Conditions 

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

____________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

• Maximum occupancy to be based on septic system size 

• Follow Short Term Rental requirements as per submitted application 

• Approval terminates upon sale or transfer of property 

• Meet Department of Health Guidelines if applicable 

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

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

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

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

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

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

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

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

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

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Recreational Development 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condition(s):  

• Survey of lots to be completed 

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

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

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

APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X ) DENIED ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Dave/Marshall. All in favor.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Resort Development 

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

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

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Shoreland location, early development 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condition(s):  

• No closer than line of site to the Rainy River 

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

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

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

APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS ( X) DENIED ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Dave/Marshall. All in favor.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 7, 2023 

7:00 P.M. on June 7, 2023 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Marshall Nelson, Ken  Horntvedt, Monica Dohmen and Dave Marhula. Absent Member: Nancy Dunnell and Wes Johnson. Others present were:  Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund. 

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve–Marshall/Tom. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 3, 2023- Motion to approve- Dave/Monica. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Application #23-06CU by Shane Meyer: A 4.25-acre tract of land  in the NE¼NE¼ in Section Thirty-four (34), Township One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range  Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.34.11.010. 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. 

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

Name of Applicant: Shane Meyer Date: June 7, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: A 4.25 acre tract of land in the NE1/4NE1/4, Section Thirty-four (34), Township  One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.34.11.010. 

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? Recreational 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 ( ) 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? 28th Street NW. 

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? Upgraded 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? Existing well and upgraded 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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? 2’x3’ sign by driveway. 

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? Plenty of space in yard. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Terminates upon sale or transfer of the property. 

2. Maximum occupancy of twelve (12) people. 

3. Follow conditions outlined in the application.

4. No rental until sewer system is upgraded. 

5. Follow Minnesota Department of Health guidelines, if applicable. 

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

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-07CU by Michael Hangsleben: Lots 11  and 12, Block 1, Schmidt-Waag Subdivision, Government Lot Two (2), Township One Hundred Sixty three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.53.01.110. 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 of Lake of  the Woods for the purpose of constructing of an access to Lake of the Woods. 

Mr. Hangslaben was present for the meeting to discuss the request with the board and answer any questions.  Questions were asked about the amount of material to be moved and whether the activity might interfere  with the existing septic system. Access will be on the South side of the cabin. One letter was entered into the  minutes. The board then moved to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Michael Hangslaben Date: May 3, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Schmidt-Waag Subdivision, Government Lot Two (2), Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33). – Parcel ID#  16.53.01.110. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to move more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone  of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of constructing of an access to Lake of the Woods. 

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

Why or why not? Recreational lake access. 

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

Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________ 

9) 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? _______________________________________________________________________ 

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

11) 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? _______________________________________________________________________

12) 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? Rock rip rap. 

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

14) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Ramp on neighboring property. 

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

11) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 14) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

16) 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? _______________________________________________________________________ 

18) 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? _______________________________________________________________________ 

19) 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? _______________________________________________________________________ 

20) 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? _______________________________________________________________________ 

21) 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:

6. Follow DNR guidelines for boat ramp. 

7. Must be ten (10) feet from lot line. 

8. Maintain erosion control measures during and after construction. 

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 – Marshall/Tom. 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 new section. Discussion about adding people by  bringing in a camper or kids in a tent. This is specifically addressed in ordinance. Discussion about dictating  specific quiet hours. Changes to ordinance will make STVR’s an IUP instead of a CUP. Josh noted that the  ordinance will now have specific language about landowner must have COC in hand prior to operation of a  short term rental including when a Winter Agreement has been issued. This allows the Board of Adjustment  to move ahead with approving a STVR during winter months, but not allowing operation until the septic  system has been properly inspected. 

Motion to accept Short Term Vacation Rental Application as drafted by Monica/Marshall. All in favor. Motion to Adjourn at 7:54 PM- Marshall/Tom. All in favor. 

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.