August 3, 2022

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

7:00 P.M. on August 3, 2022 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve –Ken/Monica. All in favor. Changed order 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 6, 2022- Motion to approve- Dave /Nancy. All in favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-04ZC by Nels Holte: Government Lot Three (3), Section Seventeen (17), Township  One hundred Sixty-two North (162), Range Thirty-two West (32) with Parcel ID# 19.17.24.010. Applicant is requesting an  amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by Section 1206. The amendment  would change the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning  District for the purposes of continued development of the property.  

Mr. Holte explained the need for the zone change request due to previous development that occurred on the property decades ago. He  is proposing to have an attached garage to the current structure. 

Name of Applicant: Nels Holte Date: August 3, 2022 Location/Legal Description: Government Lot 3 Section 17, T. 162N, R. 32W 

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection (SP) Proposed: Rural Residential (R2) Parcel Number(s): 19.17.24.010 Application Number: 22-04ZC 

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? X Yes ___No Comments: Currently residential 

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification? X Yes ___No Comments: Additional residential in area 

3. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

4. Is there a potential for public health, safety or traffic generation impacts based on the proposed zone change and how  will they be addressed?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the  proposal?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses  permitted in the zoning district?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

7. Has there been a change in the development in the general area of the property in questions?___Yes X No Comments: No change 

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood?___Yes X No Comments: No change 

Conditions: Homeowner should consider a permanent ring dike/rip rap/breakwater to encircle  structure and septic system 

Motion by Horntvedt to approve, with conditions, the request zone change by Holte. 

The motion was 2nd by Marhula, all in favor. Motion passes. 

– Consideration of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance Revisions 

o Articles X – XI (Ten – Eleven) 

Stromlund discussed upcoming need to get Floodplain Ordinance approved prior to October 27 in order for homeowners to be  able to continue getting flood insurance. Articles 10 – 11 of the Zoning Ordinance were discussed including minor changes in  order to simplify reading of the ordinance. Sections 101-107 had no questions from the group. Section 108 has minor tweaking  regarding conveying property. Administrative and Minor Subdivision language was mentioned. Recording of surveys within a  

given timeframe was discussed as there are several old surveys that never got recorded that people try to convey and can’t.  Timeframe was suggested as one year. Discussion was stopped as the Hayden party joined the meeting. 

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-01ZC by Jennice Hayden: Southwest quarter (¼) of the Northeast quarter (¼) in  Section Seven (7), Township One-hundred sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West- Parcel ID# 06.07.13.000.  Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by  Section 1206. The amendment would change the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a  Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing a permanent structure to be located on the property for  residential purposes.  

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-02ZC by Jennice Hayden: Southeast quarter (¼) of the Northwest quarter (¼) in  Section Seven (7), Township One-hundred sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West- Parcel ID# 06.07.24.000.  Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by  Section 1206. The amendment would change the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a  Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing a permanent structure to be located on the property for  residential purposes. 

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-03ZC by Jennice Hayden: Southwest quarter (¼) of the Northwest quarter (¼) in  Section Seven (7), Township One-hundred sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West- Parcel ID# 06.07.23.000. 

Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by  Section 1206. The amendment would change the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a  Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing a permanent structure to be located on the property for  residential purposes.  

Mrs. Hayden described the property and how she hopes to add several small cabins for her children to be able to visit. Access to the  property would be from the Allen Trail. Logging trails are common in the angle and Hayden has no concerns about future access to  the property as old logging trails are sufficient. The Hayden’s had hired the DNR to accompany them to the property in order to assess  the land. Their initial plans are for a two-story cabin and then spread out from there. Marhula recommended that the Planning  Commission only allow a zone change on one parcel at a time which has historically been done and the Hayden family agreed it  should be the parcel furthest to the west. Marhula recommended the group move to the findings of fact on that particular parcel. The Planning Commission decided to do the findings in the order of: 22-03ZC, 22-02ZC and then 22-01ZC. 

Name of Applicant: Jennice Hayden Date: August 3, 2022 Location/Legal Description: SW¼NW¼ Section 7, T. 167N, R. 33W 

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection (SP) Proposed: Rural Residential (R2) 

Parcel Number(s): 06.07.23.000 Application Number: 22-03ZC 

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? X Yes ___No Comments: Recreational use 

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification?X Yes ___No Comments: Mostly state land and tribal land 

3. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood?___Yes X No 

Comments: Limited residential use 

4. Is there a potential for public health, safety or traffic generation impacts based on the proposed zone change and how  will they be addressed?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the  proposal?___Yes X No 

Comments: None 

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses  permitted in the zoning district?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

7. Has there been a change in the development in the general area of the property in questions?___Yes X No Comments: None

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood?___Yes X No Comments: No change 

Conditions:

1) All buildings must follow all property setbacks 

2) Any septic system must be approved 

Motion by Dohmen to approve, with conditions, the request zone change by Holte. 

The motion was 2nd by Marhula, all in favor. Motion passes. 

Name of Applicant: Jennice Hayden Date: August 3, 2022 Location/Legal Description: SE¼NW¼ Section 7, T. 167N, R. 33W 

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection (SP) Proposed: Rural Residential (R2) 

Parcel Number(s): 06.07.24.000 Application Number: 22-02ZC 

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan?___Yes X No Comments: No plan for the property submitted 

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification? X Yes ___No Comments: No change 

3. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

4. Is there a potential for public health, safety or traffic generation impacts based on the proposed zone change and how  will they be addressed?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the  proposal?___Yes X No 

Comments: None 

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses  permitted in the zoning district?___Yes X No

Comments: No change 

7. Has there been a change in the development in the general area of the property in questions?___Yes X No Comments: No change 

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood?___Yes X No Comments: No change 

Motion by Dohmen to deny the requested zone change. 

The motion was 2nd by Horntvedt, all in favor. Motion passes.  

Name of Applicant: Jennice Hayden Date: August 3, 2022 Location/Legal Description: SW¼NE¼ Section 7, T. 167N, R. 33W 

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection (SP) Proposed: Rural Residential (R2) Parcel Number(s): 06.07.13.000 Application Number: 22-01ZC 

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan?___Yes X No Comments: No plan submitted 

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification? X Yes ___No Comments: No change 

3. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

4. Is there a potential for public health, safety or traffic generation impacts based on the proposed zone change and how  will they be addressed?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the  proposal?___Yes X No 

Comments: None

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses  permitted in the zoning district?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

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

___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

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

___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

Motion by Nelson to deny the requested zone change. 

The motion was 2nd by Dunnell, all in favor. Motion passes. 

– Consideration of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance Revisions 

o Articles X – XI (Ten – Eleven) 

Discussion resumed with completion of the Hayden requests. Plats will need to have the preliminary completed within a one-year time  frame. Then there is a 45-day window until final plat is recorded. Road right of way will be changing to 80’. Tiers along shoreland  language was simplified to two tiers. Density for resort PUD’s is changing to a square footage percentage of impervious surface rather  than number of structures. This will be for new resorts only. Setbacks will also be increased for new resorts. Conversions to  Residential PUD’s requires residential standards for density. Enforcement of ordinance was mentioned as something we continue to  try to improve.  

A Septic Inspection requirement upon sale or transfer was removed due to discussion about the available number of inspectors and  installers in the county. Cost of inspections was also noted as a concern to adding such language. 

Motion to Adjourn at 8:50 PM- Monica/Nancy. All in favor. 

July 6, 2022

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

7:00 P.M. on July 6, 2022 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve –Ken/Monica. All in favor. 

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

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

Board of Adjustment: New Business 

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Personal expansion in a residential area. 

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official control?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official control?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change – still residential. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condition(s): None.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official control?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential – no change. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condition(s): 

1. Cannot encroach any farther than drawing submitted. 

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

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

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

Motion to approve with Conditions – Ken/Wes. All in favor.  

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

Planning Commission: New Business 

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

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

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

Why or why not? Recreational development. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Residential recreational development. No change. 

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

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

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Well has been tested and septic will be brought up to code if needed. 

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? Natural vegetation. 

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested,  and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?  

YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Not needed. 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

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

2) Occupancy to be based on septic system capacity. 

3) CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property. 

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

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

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

– Consideration of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance Revisions 

o Articles I – VIII (One – Nine) 

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

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

June 1, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 1, 2022 

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

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

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 4, 2022- Motion to approve- Marshall/Dave. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-09CU by Robert Erickson: Tracts located in the Northeast  quarter of the Northwest quarter in Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.28.21.000, 19.28.21.010, 19.28.21.020. Applicant, as required by  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance 902, is requesting the cumulative movement of more than ten (10)  yards of material within the shore impact zone of Bostic Creek for the purpose of a shoreline rip rap project.  Bostic Creek is a tributary river segment. 

Bob Erickson explained the history of the seawall and past rip rap projects with the group. There was no public  correspondence. 

The board then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

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

Why or why not? Prevent shore erosion 

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? Prevent erosion, bank stabilization 

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? Stabilize the 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 ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Prevent erosion 

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? Reason for the project 

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.) Applicant to use typical cross-section design 

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/Ken. All in favor.  

Motion to Adjourn at 7:21PM – Monica/Wes. All in favor. 

May 4, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on May 4, 2022 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve agenda with amendments. Board would like to discuss new  business first and then move onto old business. -Marshall/Ken. All in favor.  

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

Board of Adjustment: No New Business  

Planning Commission: New Business 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use  Plan?_ X¬_Yes ___No Comments: Rural Residential in area 

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

Comments: Rural Residential or Special Protection 

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

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

Comments: No change 

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

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement of  surrounding property for uses permitted in the zoning district? __¬_Yes _X_No Comments: Will not change 

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

Comments: No changes 

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

Comments: Will not 

Conditions:  

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

2.) Must show photo of completed structure on site to Josh Stromlund and Scott Head 3.) Must obtain access permission from Red Lake Band to cross their property 4.) Must obtain access permission from US Customs to use Border cut for access 5.) Property will revert back to Special Protection if cabin is not on site by 7/1/2023 The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods  County Board of Commissioners adopt the above findings and DENY / APPROVE the application for a  zone change be WITH / WITHOUT conditions. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? Shoreland development 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and  existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? 

 YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

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

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

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

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

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

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section  901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( X ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? None planned 

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

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

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

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other  hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements,  has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

Why or why not? None needed 

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

 YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? On site 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

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

2.) CUP also includes boat ramp if requested 

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

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

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

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

April 6, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting  7:00 P.M. on April 6, 2022  

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

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

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None  

Board of Adjustment: No New Business  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-06CU by Twin Island Sleepers:  Government Lot Three (3) & Government Lot Four (4) in Section Three (3), Township  One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID#  17.03.21.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section  401.C and Section 402.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, for the  storage of more than five (5) fish houses and commercial winter ice fishing equipment, in  a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).  

Denton Rose was present to discuss the request. He has most of his fish houses presently stored  on site but would like to move them more to the east once a new culvert get placed this summer.  He would like to put some gravel down and would like to place two signs on the property. The  original application only listed 25 houses, but applicant said he would like to change that to up to  100 houses due to the popularity of the wheel houses. The board indicated that if the applicant  wanted to allow them to stay in those houses over the summer that would need to be permitted  separately as a campground. The applicant indicated that he would want a 5 acre pad to store the  houses and would keep the access points gated with a code padlock. The board also  acknowledged receipt of a correspondence with a neighboring property owner who had questions  that got answered by the Land and Water Planning Office staff. With no other members of the  public present the board moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Land Use Plan? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Out of view fish house storage  

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? Remove some vegetative cover only  

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

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

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

 YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Adjacent to County Road 11  

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

 YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for  petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control  Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought?  

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

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

 YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Vegetative to road and to the east; Every access to be gated  

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? Requesting two (2) 4’x8’ signs 

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 needed 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1.) Limited to one-hundred (100) Fish house units – can include wheel houses 

2.) No habitation  

3.) Must maintain fifty (50) foot natural vegetative buffer beyond the road right of way and  on east side of the property 

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( X ) Denied ( ) Motion to approve with conditions – Dave/Wes. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-07CU by The Guide Shack: Part of  Government Lot five (5) being part of Outlot A of Brush Island according to the plat  thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder. – Parcel ID# 03.51.50.014 in Section  Twenty-nine (29), Township One-Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-three  (33) West. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C  of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial use of the  property consisting of a short-term transient rental property, in a Rural Residential  Zoning District (R2). Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.  

Bruce Baumgartner and Andy Lundbohm were present to discuss the request. They are fishing  guides at the Northwest Angle and would like a location to rent to their customers as well as others who have their own boats, or snowmobiles/winter houses for year-round rental. The cabin  currently has one dock and is getting a second dock this summer to allow for 4 boats to be able to  be parked there. They are unsure of how much capacity their current septic system has, but  indicated they would be willing to add on to get the system up to the capacity they desire, at least  10 people, but would like to ask for a maximum of 12 people. There was no as built submitted  when the system was installed so LWPO needs records indicating tank capacity and the size of  the mound to determine what the system gallons per day was designed for. The board  acknowledged the receipt of letters from neighboring property owners Jacob and Kelly Mertens,  Chris Caskey, Gary and Cathy Caskey, and Linda Kingery. The applicants also mentioned that  Wi-Fi was available in the rental and cell phone coverage worked as long as the renters had  Verizon cell service. The board then moved on to findings of fact and decision.  

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Land Use Plan? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Recreational use 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and  welfare? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change  

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

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

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

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

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

 YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Lake access only 

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? Vacation rental- water orientated 

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? Occupancy to be limited to septic inspection  

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? See #10 for septic – new well adequate  

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

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for  petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution  Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought?  

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

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

 YES ( ) NO ( X ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Must mark property lines  

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? One sign approximately 2’x3’  

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.) Quiet time from 10PM to 8AM 

2.) Occupancy to be based on septic size to a maximum of 12 people  

3.) Rules to be posted: quiet time, capacity limits, stay on property, no tents for additional  capacity 

4.) Contact information must be provided for complaints, emergencies, and septic 

5.) Conditional Use Permit expires on sale of property  

6.) Meet all MDH guidelines 

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

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

Motion to Adjourn at 8:13PM – Monica/Ken. All in favor. 

March 2, 2022

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

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

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

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

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment: No New Business  

Planning Commission: New Business 

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

Why or why not? Will alter topography. 

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? Private road? 

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

Why or why not? Isolated. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

Why or why not? Natural vegetation. 

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

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the  applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be  addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Why or why not?  

__________________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? Private road and County Road. 

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

Why or why not? Farmland. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

Why or why not? Natural vegetative breaks. 

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

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the  applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be  addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

Why or why not?  

__________________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? County roads two sides. 

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

Why or why not? Remains residential. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the  applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be  addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

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

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

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

February 2, 2022

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve agenda-Marshall/Wes. All in favor.    

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 5, 2021- Motion to approve- Dave/Ken. All in favor.    

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None  

Board of Adjustment: New Business  

Consideration of Variance Application #22-02V by Philip Tange: a tract in  Government Lot Three (3), Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.25.31.060. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 1005 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to sell a portion of property and relocate the boundary line between two  abutting non-conforming lots of record, which will increase the degree of nonconformity  for lot size and width within the shoreland area of the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an  Agricultural River segment. 

Mr. Tange was present to discuss the request. He indicated that he had sold a portion of the  property to the neighboring lot owners in 2018 and now he would just like to continue the line  across the property, while writing himself in a permanent easement to ensure he has legal access  to his property. The board clarified there were several requests with regards to this variance  request that would all be addressed with this one application. The board then moved on to the  findings of fact and decision.  

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? No change in conformity of lots. 

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

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

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and access issues. 

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

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? Access and lot size. 

Condition(s): 

1. New owner to agree to permanent easement for access. 

2. West lot line to be adjusted by future survey. 

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

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

APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X) DENIED ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions- Ken/Monica. All in favor.  

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

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

Planning Commission: Old Business  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-01CU by Jon Meikle: Northwest  quarter (NW ¼) Northwest quarter (NW ¼) of Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West — Parcel ID# 19.28.22.000.  Applicant is requesting an After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit as required by Section  902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10)  cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards  outside of the shore impact zone of the Lake of the Woods for the purpose of constructing  a private drive. Bostic Creek is a Tributary River segment.  

Planning Commission asked the landowner if they would be willing to table the request until the  board can see what the activity actually looks like. The landowner needs to submit something in  writing to extend the 60 day window. The landowner agreed with the request and said he would  be in to sign the agreement this week. This request has been tabled until spring.  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-02CU by Winter Sett Inc. Michael  Herzog: Lot 12, Block 3, Winter Sett Estates of Section nine (9) Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 18.51.03.120.  Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake  of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to cumulatively move more than fifty (50) cubic  yards of material outside of the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose 

of disposing dredged material from an existing inland harbor. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

Mr. Herzog was present to speak on behalf of the request. Essentially, he just wants to clean  out his harbor and then place this spoil material onto a bare lot that he owns just down the  road. He expects to deposit roughly 500 cubic yards of material onto this lot. This has been  done in the past but there was no conditional use permit ever requested. Three letters of  correspondence were read into the record from neighboring landowners in support of Mr.  Herzog’s request. There was an additional letter received from Brent Mason (DNR Area  Hydrologist) in response to the dredging of the harbor itself and not the deposit of material.  The board received copies of all letters in board packets with exception to one received from  a neighbor on the day of the meeting Feb 2, 2022. The board then moved on to the findings  of fact.  

Project Proposal: To allow applicant to cumulatively move more than fifty (50) cubic yards of  material outside the shore impact zone of the Lake of the Woods for the purpose of dredging an  existing inland harbor. 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? Recreational use.

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

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) 

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

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)  

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

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

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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)  

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) 

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) 

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)  

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) 

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) 

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

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

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) 

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 Approve as Presented – Dave/ Marshall. All in favor.  

– Set Date/Time of Training Session 

The board discussed possible dates for training with Scott Anderson – Land Use  Attorney.  

Motion to Adjourn at 7:34PM – Dave/Wes. All in favor. 

January 5, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting  7:00 P.M. on January 5, 2022  

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

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

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

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

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None  

Board of Adjustment: New Business  

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

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Existing building  

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Existing building and common ownership  of multiple lots 

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X) DENIED ( ) Motion to approve with conditions-Dave/ Marshall. All in favor.  

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

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

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-01CU by Jon Meikle: Northwest  quarter (NW ¼) Northwest quarter (NW ¼) of Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West — Parcel ID# 19.28.22.000.  Applicant is requesting an After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit as required by Section  902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10)  cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards  outside of the shore impact zone of the Lake of the Woods for the purpose of constructing  a private drive. Bostic Creek is a Tributary River segment. 

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

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

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

November 3, 2021

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

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

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 6, 2021- Motion to approve Dave/Monica. All in  favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment: New Business  

– Consideration of Variance #21-13V by Keith and Sally Kennedy: The North half  (1/2) of Lot Four (4) and Lot Five (5), Block Five (5), Rocky Point Townsite within  Section Eight (8), Township One-Hundred Sixty-Three (163) North, Range Thirty-Four  (34) West- Parcel ID# 14.50.05.040. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section  503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to construct an addition less  than the required twenty-foot (20’) setback from the Road Right-of-Way of Lake of the  Woods Lane. Lake of the Woods is a general development lake. 

Keith and Sally Kennedy spoke to the board regarding their claim. The purpose of this request is  for a 3-season porch, no additional bedrooms will be added on to the structure. The garage is for  storage with no living quarters.  

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

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

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

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Property size. 

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

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

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

Condition(s): 

1) Must have a septic system inspection. 

2) Additional no larger than 12’x20’. 

3) Completed by 12/31/2022. 

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- Marshall/ Ken. All in favor. 

Motion to close Board of Adjustment- Marshall/ Monica. All in favor.  

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

Planning Commission: New Business 

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

Connie Barrow was unable to attend the meeting in person so was called on speaker phone to  discuss the request. The property was purchased a year ago, and the current owner has not been  to the property. She thought the property was zoned residential until requesting a building permit  from Land and Water Planning office. Her plan is to build a pop up cabin on the property and  would like to leave the structure permanently. The landowner plans to access the property via  existing logging roads that she has observed on google maps. The board has concerns for this  proposed access route as it would cross private property. 

Motion to table request- Marshall/ Ken. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-15CU by Robert Audette: A tract two hundred sixty-four feet by one-thousand five-hundred seventy-three feet (264’ x 1573’)  in both Government Lot Two (2) of Section seven (7) Township One-hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West and the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the  Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Eighteen (18), Township One-hundred Sixty-Two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.65.00.090. Applicant is  requesting an After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of  material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards outside of the  shore impact zone of the Lake of the Woods for the purpose of constructing a private boat  ramp. Lake of the Woods is a general development lake.  

Robert Audette and his attorney representative Steve Anderson attended the meeting and spoke  to describe the request. The main purpose behind the concrete is for access for his wife who has  limitations due to medical reasons.  

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

Why or why not? Proposed yes/ATF not 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

Why or why not? Did affect topography, drainage and veg cover. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and  existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? 

YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Concrete to shoreline past OHW replacing rip rap not acceptable. 

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? For boat ramp.

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) Must remove concrete from NW corner of garage to NE corner of house deck with the exception  of a 12-foot-wide walkway allowed to OHM. 

2) From OHM to lake must use jointed concrete cable ties. 

3) Must also replace rip rap to edges of concrete. 

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.  

Motion to Adjourn at 8:28PM – Ken/Monica. All in favor. 

October 6, 2021

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on October 6th, 2021 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Ken  Horntvedt, Monica Dohmen, and Dave Marhula. The following members were absent: Wes  Johnson, Marshall Nelson, and District 5 vacant position. Others present were: Land and Water  Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 1, 2021- Motion to approve Dave/Monica. All in  favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Ken Horntvedt and Tom Mio received notification of  Driftwood Acres Preliminary Plat.  

Board of Adjustment: New Business  

Consideration of Variance #21-010V by Randall and Naomi Sherf: Lots 6 and 7,  Block 1, Birch Beach Resort, Section Eight (8), Township One hundred Sixty-three  (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West, Parcel ID # of 16.51.01.060. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to allow the construction of an addition onto an existing structure that will  not meet the required Seventy-five (75) foot setback from Lake of the Woods. Lake  of the Woods is a General Development lake. 

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.  

Findings of Fact and Decision Supporting/ Denying a Variance: 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 Land use  

________________________________________________________________________ 

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? Building placement prior to zoning  regulations 

________________________________________________________________________

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? See #3 

________________________________________________________________________ 

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

________________________________________________________________________ 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size, location of current structure ________________________________________________________________________ Condition(s): Upgrade septic, complete by 12/31/2022  

_______________________________________________________________________________ 

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/Ken. All in favor.  

Consideration of Variance #21-011V by D and K Cabins, LLC: Lots 2 and 3,  Block 4, Wheeler’s Point, Section Nineteen (19), Township One hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID # of 19.52.04.020. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Sections 605.1 and 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to allow the subdivision of a non-conforming lot and to  allow the existing structures to be closer than the required ten (10) foot lot line  setback. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment. 

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.  

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

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

YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential/Recreational Property use  _____________________________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remains residential_____________ ________________________________________________________________________ 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES (X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Plotted lot sizes_____________ ______________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________________ Condition(s): Survey completed prior to split. 

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/Monica- All in favor.  

Consideration of Variance #21-012V by Good Ice Properties, LLC: Lots 16 and  17, Welberg’s Addition, Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  North (162N), Range Thirty-two West (32W)- Parcel ID#19.53.00.160. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 603 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to allow the construction of a deck/platform onto an existing structure that  will exceed the fifteen (15) percent of the existing structure setback from the Rainy  River. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment.  

Board discussed request with no applicant present to comment on the situation and moved on to  findings of fact and decision. The deck will be open (not enclosed) and will not encroach any  closer than the existing structure. 

Findings of Fact and Decision for Supporting/Denying a Variance: 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 land use in commercial area ________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

________________________________________________________________________ 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Original buildings set backs 

________________________________________________________________________ 

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

________________________________________________________________________ 

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

________________________________________________________________________ 

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

________________________________________________________________________ 

Condition(s): Deck size cannot exceed submitted plan size  

_______________________________________________________________________________ 

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- Monica/ Ken- All in favor.  

Board of Adjustment: Old Business 

Consideration of Variance #21-09V by Keith Peppel: Lot 1, Block 4, Wheeler’s  Point Plat, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 19.52.04.010. Applicant is requesting a  variance from Sections 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to  allow additions to an existing structure that will not meet the required 100-foot setback from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OWHL) of the Rainy River; will not  meet the required 10-foot lot line setback; and, will not meet the required 20-foot  Right-of-Way setback. Also, applicant is requesting a variance from 904 of the Lake  of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to exceed the allowable 25% impervious  surface lot coverage. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment. 

Applicant submitted a formal withdrawn for this variance in writing.  

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

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

Planning Commission: New Business 

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

-Church Property on US County Road 

-Bituminous on Proposed Lot 1 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1.) Move two buildings to meet 100’ setback from the Rainy River 

2.) Clarification on Public Road/Access of Proposed Lot 1 

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

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-02ZC by MLK Rentals, LLC: Part of Outlot A,  Birch Acres, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.61.50.020. Applicant is requesting a zone change  from a Residential (R1) Zoning District to a Commercial-Recreation (CR) Zoning  District for the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the property. 

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision. Read a  correspondence into the record from a nearby property owner who received notice of the  changes.  

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Land Use Plan? 

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: Commercial corridor

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

_X__Yes ___No 

Comments: Adjoining businesses (on CUP’s) 

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

Comments: 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: No change or improvement 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: No additional services needed 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: Will not impede – no change 

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

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: Increased business activity (CUP’s) 

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: No change 

Conditions:  

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

Motion to Approve Without Conditions- Dave/ Monica- All in favor.  

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-03ZC by MLK Holding Company, Inc.: The  West 100 feet of the W1/2NE1/4, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.24.12.010. Applicant is  requesting a zone change from a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District to a Commercial Recreation (CR) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the  property. The property is currently being used as part of a storage area and for lake  access. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.  

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Land Use Plan? 

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: Within commercial corridor 

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

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: Lake access 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: Lake access through wooded area- no change 

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change 

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

___Yes _X_No 

Comments: None needed 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: Will not impede 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: Was covered by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the past 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: No change 

Conditions:  

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

Motion to Approve Without Conditions- Ken/ Dave- All in favor.  

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-04ZC by MLK Holding Company, Inc.: The  East 200 feet of the West 400 feet of the South 233 feet of the SW1/4NE1/4, Section  Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two  (32) – Parcel ID# 19.24.12.020. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Rural  Residential (R2) Zoning District to a Commercial-Recreation (CR) Zoning District for 

the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the property. The property is currently  being for fish house storage. 

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.  

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Land Use Plan? 

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: Growth corridor 

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

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: Currently CUP 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: 

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

___Yes _X__No 

Comments: No change 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: No change 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: No change

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

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: More commercial activity 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: No change 

Conditions:  

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

Motion to Approve Without Conditions- Monica/ Dave- All in favor.  

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-05ZC by MLK Holding Company, Inc.: The  West 100 feet of the SW1/4SE1/4, Section Thirteen (13), Township One Hundred Sixty two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.13.43.010. Applicant is  requesting a zone change from a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District to a Commercial Recreation (CR) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the  property. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.  

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Land Use Plan? 

_X__Yes ___No 

Comments: Within commercial corridor 

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

_X__Yes ___No

Comments: Lake access 

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

Comments: Lake access through wooded area- no change 

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

___Yes _X__No 

Comments: No change 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: None needed 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: Will not impede 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: Was covered by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the past 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: No change 

Conditions: 

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

Motion to Approve Without Conditions – Ken/ Dave- All in favor.  

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-06ZC by MLT&T, LLC: Part of the W1/2NE1/4,  Less deeded, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.24.12.000. Applicant is requesting a zone change  from a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District to a Commercial-Recreation (CR) Zoning  District for the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the property. Lake of the  Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.  

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Land Use Plan? 

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: In growth corridor 

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

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: Commercial to East & Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on property currently 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: No change 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: No change – Current Conditional Use Permit (CUP)

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

___Yes _X__No 

Comments: None needed 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: Will not impede 

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

___Yes _X__No 

Comments: No – currently a Conditional Use Permitted (CUP) business 

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

___Yes _X__No 

Comments: No change 

Conditions:  

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

Motion to Approve Without Conditions- Ken/ Monica- 3-1 Approved, Dave Opposed.  

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-07ZC by MLT&T, LLC: A tract of land lying  within Government Lot 1, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.24.11.000. Applicant is requesting a  zone change from a Residential (R1) Zoning District to a Commercial-Recreation (CR)  Zoning District for the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the property. Lake of  the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision. 

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Land Use Plan? 

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: Commercial corridor 

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

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: Commercial adjoining 

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

___Yes _X__No 

Comments: 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: None needed at this time 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: Will not impede 

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: Not recently 

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

neighborhood? 

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: No change 

Conditions: Current zoning currently appropriate 

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

Motion to Deny- Ken; Dies for lack of a 2nd.  

Motion to Deny- Monica/Dave- Motion carried to Deny 4-0- All in favor.  

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-08ZC by MLT&T, LLC: The East 110 feet of the  West 793 feet of the South 266 feet of the SW1/4NE1/4, Section Twenty-four (24),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID#  19.24.12.040. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Rural Residential (R2)  Zoning District to a Commercial-Recreation (CR) Zoning District for the purposes of  allowing commercial activity on the property. 

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.  

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Land Use Plan? 

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: Growth corridor 

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

_X__Yes ___No 

Comments: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to the north

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

Comments: Single cabin 

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

___Yes _X__No 

Comments: No change 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: None needed 

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

___Yes _X__No 

Comments: Will not impede 

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

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: Increase in commercial activity recently 

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

___Yes _X__No 

Comments: No change 

Conditions:  

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

Motion to Approve Without Conditions- Monica/ Ken- All in favor.  

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-09ZC by MLT&T, LLC: The SW1/4SE1/4 and  Government Lot 5, Section Thirteen (13), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162)  North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.13.43.000. Applicant is requesting a zone  change from a Rural Residential (R2), Special Protection (SP), and Residential (R1)  Districts to a Commercial-Recreation (CR) District for the purposes of allowing  commercial activity on the property. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.  

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Land Use Plan? 

_X__Yes ___No 

Comments: Growth corridor 

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

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to the south 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: 

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

___Yes _X__No 

Comments: None at this time

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: 

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

___Yes _X__No 

Comments: 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: 

Conditions: SW ¼ / SE ¼ Zone Commercial Recreation (CR) 

Government Lot #5 to remain Special Protection (SP) and Residential Development (R1) 

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

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

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-10ZC by MLK Holding Company, Inc.: The  East 100 feet of the West 200 feet of the South 233 feet of the SW1/4NE1/4, Section  Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two  (32) – Parcel ID# 19.24.12.011. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Rural  Residential (R2) Zoning District to a Commercial-Recreation (CR) Zoning District for  the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the property. 

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.  

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Land Use Plan? 

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Growth corridor 

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

__X_Yes ___No 

Comments: Currently CUP 

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

Comments: 

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

___Yes _X__No 

Comments: No change 

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

___Yes _X__No 

Comments: No change 

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

___Yes __X_No 

Comments: No change 

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

_X__Yes ___No 

Comments: More commercial activity 

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change 

Conditions:  

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

Motion to Approve Without Conditions- Monica/ Dave- All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-14CU by Sean Westman: The  Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SW1/4 NE1/4  SE1/4) in Section Twenty-six (26), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-two (32) West- Parcel ID#19.26.41.040. Applicant is requesting a  conditional use permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance to allow the storage of commercial winter ice fishing equipment  including more than five (5) fish houses in a Rural Residential (R2) district.  Board discussed request without applicant present and moved on to findings of fact and decision.  

Findings of Fact and Decision: 

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land  Use Plan? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Growth corridor 

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? Highway 172 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Residential Development (R1) and Rural Residential (R2) 

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

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

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

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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.) Cannot see fish houses from outside property during summer leaf on conditions

2.) Houses must be 20 feet from property lines to protect neighbor’s property

3.) No more than 20 stored fish houses on this parcel 

4.) No habitation during storage 

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

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

Motion to Adjourn at 9:38PM – Ken/Monica. All in favor.