June 2, 2021

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 2, 2021

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:

Motion to approve agenda – K/D

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 5, 2021 – R/W

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None

Board of Adjustment – New Business

– Consideration of Variance #21-05V by Gary Kullhem and Travis Barclay: Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Rainy River Retreat, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.62.02.010 and 19.62.02.020. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Sections 503.7 and 605 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure at less than the required fifty (50) Right-of-Way setback from State Highway 172 NW and split two non conforming lots of record under common ownership in a Commercial-Recreation Zoning District.

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner was present to come to the table and explain their request. Mr. Kullhem approached the table and explained he was the representative for this request. Mr. Kullhem explained that the property has been owned by himself for roughly six years. Mr. Barclay then approached the table and explained he was a representative as a prospective owner of the lot, should it split and wanted to place a 44’ x 70’ shop, encroaching the allowed setbacks. Discussion between the Board, Mr. Kullhem, and Mr. Barclay ensued. Keith Aune (nearby resident near the parcel in question at lot 9). He posed questions regarding the well that services rainy river retreat, and wanted to better grasp the implications the new development would have on this well. They discussed the lot size (already nonconforming), setback requirements, and the Wheeler’s Point Sanitary District.

Mio noted written correspondence was received from Steve Rutzel (nearby resident on lot 5), Kent Buschel Spears, David Lang, Linda Straus regarding taxes, the shared well, and trash/recycling/fish cleaning….etc, and the upkeep of the road/ increase of traffic. With no further discussion from the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of Facts.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE

Name of Applicant: Gary Kullhem Date: June 2, 2021

Parcel #: 19.62.02.010 and 19.62.02.020

Variance Application #: 21-05V

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Currently commercial.

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 commercial and it is suitable to place a workshop in that area.

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

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

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

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

1) To be used only for commercial use.

2) Building start must be completed by December 31, 2023.

3) Lot sale from lot split can occur at anytime after June 2, 2021.

4) Living quarter concerns will be addressed by MDH process.

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

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

APPROVED (X) DENIED ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: D/W. All in favor, none opposed.

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

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting: K/D. All in favor, none opposed. Mr. Mio entertained a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting. Motion to open the Planning Commission meeting: D/R. All in favor, none opposed. Planning Commission – Old Business

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

Mr. Mio asked if a representative was present from Hooper Creek LLC was present and to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Brian Ney stated he could be the representative for Hooper Creek, LLC. This was tabled last discussion as per deficiencies with the submittal of the final plat, and the changes have now been rectified. Mio noted no further written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any objections.

Motion to Approve Final Plat: D/R. All in favor, none opposed.

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-09CU by Leroy Howard: Lot 3, Block 2, Dawley Estates, Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel ID# 31.53.02.030. 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 ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of constructing a private boat ramp.

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner or a representative was present to come to the table and explain their request. Mr Howard was present as the current landowner. Mr. Mio suggested that the removal of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material within the basin area should also be added to the permit, which is outside the shore impact zone.

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

Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any objections.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Leroy Howard

Date: June 2, 2021

Location/Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 2, Dawley Estates, Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel

ID# 31.53.02.030

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to cumulatively move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of constructing a private boat ramp.

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? Expansion and upgrade of an existing ramp.

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

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? Ramp will be bermed.

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? Vegetative cover will be restored to previous state

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? It’s a boat launch so it needs to be within the floodplain/way of the river.

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? Ramp will be bermed.

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

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

Why or why not?

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Remains Rural 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? It’s a boat ramp/launch.

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? No change.

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: This CUP, also includes more than fifty (50) yards in non-shore impact zone. Vegetative cover must be planted to subdue erosion.

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: D/K. All in favor, none opposed.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-10CU by Nicholas and Jessie Anthony: NE¼SW¼NE¼, SW¼SE¼NE¼, S½SE¼SE¼NE¼, Section Twenty six (26), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#: 19.26.13.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a Rural Residential

Development (R2) Zoning District.

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner or a representative was present to come to the table and explain their request. Jon Waibel came to the table and explained he was the representative for the project in lieu of the landowners. He explained the landowners are looking to rent this property out and are aware of the MDH regulations regarding the well and parking, and a compliance inspection has been completed for the existing septic system. The landowners have indicated that this will be more used as a winter rental rather than a summer rental and there are no current plans to begin renting it out this summer. They discussed MDH guidelines and indicated to the representative that the landowners must complete and provide all applicable information to MDH prior to the conditional use.

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Nicholas and Jessie Anthony

Date: June 2, 2021

Location/Legal Description: NE¼SW¼NE¼, SW¼SE¼NE¼, S½SE¼SE¼NE¼, Section Twenty-six (26), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,

Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#: 19.26.13.010

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a Rural Residential Development (R2) Zoning District.

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

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

Why or why not? Must comply with MDH guidelines.

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? Access to MN172

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

Why or why not? Individual Septic System and Private Wells (x2)

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? No change or additional traffic as before.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1.) This CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property.

2.) Must meet MDH requirements.

3.) Must pay lodging tax.

4.) Quiet time 10 pm to 6 am.

5.) Must meet State Fire Code.

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: K/D. All in favor, none opposed.

Tom Mio would like to resign as Chairman of the Board. Board asked to table this discussion until the next meeting.

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Adjournment: D/W

May 5, 2021

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:

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

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

Board of Adjustment – New Business

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

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

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condition(s):

1) Additions cannot exceed proposed sketch.

2) Completed by 12/31/22.

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

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

APPROVED (X) DENIED ( )

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-07CU by Tillman Infrastructure, LLC, on behalf of Richard and Teresa Humeniuk: The SE¼SW¼, Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel ID# – 31.12.31.080. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial communications tower in a Rural Residential District (R2).

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

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

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission

Findings of Fact and Decision

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

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

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial communications tower in a Rural Residential District (R2).

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

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

Why or why not? Will increase safety.

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

Why or why not? Adjacent to a County Road.

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ The specific conditions of approval are as follows: Follow FCC and FAA guidelines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#: 19.62.01.060. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District.

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

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission

Findings of Fact and Decision

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

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

West – Parcel ID#: 19.62.01.060

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

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

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

Why or why not? No change.

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

Why or why not? Adjacent to Pickeral Trail.

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? Sewer system.

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

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

Why or why not? Well has been tested and on sewer system.

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? Parking in front of unit.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1) CUP for North end of duplex only.

2) Must meet MDH requirements.

3) Terminates on transfer or sale.

4) Must pay lodging tax.

5) Quiet time 10:30 pm to 6 am.

6) Must meet State Fire Code.

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane. All in favor, none opposed. With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:07 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Head/Nelson

April 7, 2021

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

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula and Wes Johnson. The following members were absent: Reed McFarlane and 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 – M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt

Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 3, 2021 – M/S/P Horntvedt/Head

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None

Board of Adjustment – New Business

– Consideration of Variance #21-02V by Terry Brateng: Lots 4 & 5, Block 1, Subdivision of Outlot A of Riverside Plat, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.51.01.040. Applicant is requesting a Variance as required by Section 501.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to create a lot less than the minimum one (1) acre lot size for a non-shoreland property located in a Residential Zoning District (R1).

Mr. Mio asked Mr. Brateng to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Brateng explained that he has a river lot and then recently purchased this backlot. His request is to retain a portion of the lot for a future storage shed and then sell the other portion to his brother and sister in law. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Brateng ensued. They discussed future develop plans of the lots, setback requirements, and adjoining the back lot with the river lot.

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE Name of Applicant: Terry Brateng Date: April 7, 2021

Parcel #: 24.51.01.040 Variance Application #: 21-02V A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon consideration of the following criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot boundaries/original plat.

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

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

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

Condition(s): River lot (Lot 13, Block 1, Riverside Plat) and Lot #4 (Lot 4, Block 1, Subdivision of Outlot A of Riverside Plat) to be forever attached as one parcel.

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

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

APPROVED (X) DENIED ( ) Motion to Approve with Condition: M/S/P Marhula/Head. All in favor, none opposed.

– Consideration of Variance #21-03V by Michael Klein: Part of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Wheeler’s Point, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 19.52.01.040. Applicant is requesting a Variance as required by Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition less than the required ten (10) foot property line and the seventy five (75) foot Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) setbacks within the shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development lake.

Mr. Mio asked Mr. Klein to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Klein explained that he would like to add a small addition to the existing structure to accommodate a full bath, utility room, washer/dryer, closet and storage. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Klein ensued. They discussed the age of the current structure, proximity to the lot line as per the survey, and the Wheeler’s Point Sanitary District.

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

Name of Applicant: Michael Klein Date: April 7, 2021

Parcel #: 19.52.01.040 Variance Application #: 21-03VLake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment

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.

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 position of structure.

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Previous owners and plat.

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 and position of structures.

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) DENIED ( )

Motion to Approve As Presented: M/S/P Johnson/Marhula. All in favor, none opposed.

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

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

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

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

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-04CU by Devlin Reasy: Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Turgeon Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 24.60.01.040. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purposes of controlling erosion and sedimentation. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment.

Mr. Mio asked Mr. Reasy to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Reasy explained that he would like revitalize an existing access to the Rainy, address bank erosion and behind the house address some erosion with fabric and rock in the ravine. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Reasy ensued. They discussed proper erosion control and seeding the exposed soil immediately.

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Devlin Reasy Date: April 7, 2021

Location/Legal Description: Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Turgeon Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 24.60.01.040.

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of controlling erosion and sedimentation.

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? Control 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? Erosion control.

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

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? Reason for project.

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-05CU by Knife River on behalf of The Welberg Family Trust: The SW¼NE ¼; SE¼NW¼; NE¼SW¼; NW¼SE¼; Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.36.13.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion and continue the extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining and washing and hot mix asphalt plant in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

Mr. Mio asked the representative from Knife River to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Basgaard represented Knife River and provided a brief history of the project area as well as detailing the future expansion to the current project areas. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Basgaard ensued. They discussed noise, dust control, hours of operation, truck routes, permit requirements from MPCA, reclamation, quantity of aggregate, existing berms, and proposed berm locations from the overburden of the proposed expansion site.

Mio asked if anyone in the audience would like to say anything regarding the request.

Jonathan McHaney, lives to the east of the pit, brought up truck traffic routes and screening between the residences and pit. Through this discussion, the requested area doesn’t involve the area where Mr. McHaney was talking about. There are two property owners and Mr. McHaney was talking about the pit owned by the other landowner.

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Knife River on behalf of The Welberg Family Trust Date: April 7, 2021

Location/Legal Description: The SW¼NE ¼; SE¼NW¼; NE¼SW¼; NW¼SE¼; Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.36.13.000.

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion and continue the extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining and washing and hot mix asphalt plant in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

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

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? No change.

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

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

Why or why not? Same access as before expansion.

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)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 10-year CUP – Must meet all MPCA requirements.

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Head. All in favor, none opposed.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-06CU by Knife River on behalf of Michael Gamache: The SW¼NW ¼, Section Three (3), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 23.03.23.000. 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 use of the property consisting of aggregate mining in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

Mr. Mio asked Mr. Basgaard to explain the request. Mr. Basgaard provided a brief history of the project area as well as detailing the current requested project areas. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Basgaard ensued. They discussed noise, dust control, hours of operation, truck routes, permit requirements from MPCA, reclamation, quantity of aggregate, existing berms, and proposed berm locations from the overburden of the proposed expansion site.

Mio asked if anyone in the audience would like to say anything regarding the request.

Brian Labore, landowner to the west, inquired as to the noise, hours of operation, traffic noise and congestion, and if a crusher will be present.

Mr. Marhula and Mr. Stromlund relayed phone conversations they had with the adjacent neighbor regarding a lot line dispute.

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Knife River on behalf of Michael Gamache Date: April 7, 2021

Location/Legal Description: The SW¼NW ¼, Section Three (3), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 23.03.23.000.

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive use of the property consisting of aggregate mining in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

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

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? Existing road.

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? Via 38^thAve NW.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: CUP tied to LOW County Road #6 project.

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/S/P Horntvedt/Johnson. All in favor, none opposed. With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:59 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Johnson/Marhula

March 3, 2021

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:

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

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

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None

Board of Adjustment – New Business

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

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

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

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

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE

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

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Development in Growth Corridor______

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( )

____3/3/21____________ ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio

Chair, Board of Adjustment

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Commission – New Business

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

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

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

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

Name of Applicant: _Gregg Hennum______________________ Date: _March 3, 2021______ Location/Legal Description: _Lot 14, Block 1, Birch Acres Subdivision___________________ Project Proposal: _Residential PUD in R1 District___________________________________

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

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

Why or why not? Stormwater to be addressed.

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? See #2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __________________________________

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

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

March 3, 2021 _____________________________________ Date Tom Mio

Chair, Planning Commission

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

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

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

February 3, 2021

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 6^th, 2021 – Motion to change adjournment, Reed McFarlane was not present at the last meeting so he could not have motioned to adjourn. M/S/P – Horntvedt/Head

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

– Tom Mio indicated a conflict of interest for CUP 21-02CU

– Dave Marhula indicated a conflict of interest for CUP 21-01CU

Planning Commission – Old Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-01CU by Grant and Savanna Slick: A 4.6-acre tract in Section Twenty-nine (29), Range One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.29.22.020. Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a Rural Residential Zoning (R2).

Mr. Mio asked the Slicks to come forward and explain their request. The Slicks explained that they recently purchased a new property adjacent to their existing short-term vacation rental with the intent of renting it as a short-term vacation rental. They presented additional information regarding potential ‘house rules’ for the property in response to neighbor complaints.

Discussion between the Commission and the Slicks ensued. They discussed property line demarcation.

Mr. Mio then opened the meeting to comments from the public. Several members of the public spoke in opposition to the request. One additional letter was noted for the record in support of the application.

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

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

Name of Applicant: Grant & Savanna Slick_________________ Date: February 3, 2021_____

Location/Legal Description: A Tract of land in Section Twenty-nine (29), Range One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.29.22.020

Project Proposal: Operate a short-term transient rental in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2)

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

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? County Road #75.

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

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? Septic will be checked in Spring.

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

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

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? Not changing from residential.

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

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

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

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? County Road #75 and onsite parking.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

Septic inspection Spring of 2021.
Rules must be posted on website.
1. Boat speed
2. Quite times @ 10:00 pm
3. Capacity of 8 on the property
4. No tents or campers for additional renters/capacity
5. Contact information must be available for complaints
6. No events during rentals
7. Breaking rules result in eviction immediately
8. Dogs and pets on leashes or restraints
9. Trespass issues on neighboring property
10. Visibly mark property lines
11. ATV and snowmobile traffic
CUP expires on transfer/sale

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) February 3, 2021

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

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

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-02CU by L & S Investing, LLC: Government Lots 3, 4, and 5, less deeded in Section Seven (7), Range One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.07.32.009. Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District.

Mio asked the applicants to come forward and explain his request. Mr. Steinbach and Mrs. Lawrence explained that they are in the process of converting the main lodge of the bible camp in to a 4-bedroom residence to be rented as a VRBO. They explained that their long term goals are to subdivide the larger parcel.

Discussion between the board and the applicant ensued. They discussed renting out additional units on the site, resort definitions, parking and capacity.

Mio read correspondence received regarding this request in to the record.

Mr. Mio then opened the meeting to comments from the public. Several members of the public expressed concerns regarding this request.

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

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

Name of Applicant: L & S Investing LLC Date: February 3, 2021

Location/Legal Description: Government Lots 3, 4, and 5, less deeded in Section Seven (7), Range One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.07.32.009

Project Proposal: Operate a short-term transient rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1)

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

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Will not – brushing along river only.

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

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) 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 #30.

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

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? To be inspected Spring 2021.

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? To be inspected Spring 2021.

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

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

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

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

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? County Road #30 and onsite parking.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

Septic inspection Spring of 2021.
Rules must be posted on website
1. Boat speed
2. Quite times @ 10:00 pm
3. Contact information must be available for complaints
4. No tents or campers for additional renters/occupants
5. No events during rentals
6. Breaking rules result in eviction immediately
7. Dogs and pets on leashes or restrained
8. Trespass issues on neighboring property
9. ATV and Snowmobile traffic on property controlled
10. Capacity limited to septic sized to 75 gal/person/day
11. CUP based on current building size and dimensions on Lot #3 (3.41 acres) on conceptual plat.
CUP expires on transfer/sale.

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) February 3, 2021

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

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Head/Marhula

January 6, 2021

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 4, 2020 – M/S/P Marhula/Nelson

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

– None

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-01CU by Grant and Savanna Slick: A 4.6-acre tract in Section Twenty-nine (29), Range One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.29.22.020. Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a Rural Residential Zoning (R2).

Mr. Mio asked the Slicks to come forward and explain their request. The Slicks explained that they recently purchased a new property adjacent to their existing short-term vacation rental with the intent of renting it as a short-term vacation rental. They explained that they felt their first was a success and were not aware of such a large number of complaints from neighbors.

Discussion between the Commission and the Slicks ensued. They discussed, at length, the complaints from the neighbors. The Slicks discussed the rules that they would put in place to prevent the issues from arising again including addressing guns on the property and quiet hours. They also discussed guest capacity, septic capacity and zoning.

Mr. Mio noted several written requests from the public for the record. Mr. Mio had those present who had also written a letter to read their letter and explain their position. Mr. Mio read the letters of those not present in to the record.

Mr. Mio then opened the meeting to comments from the public. Several members of the public spoke in opposition to the request.

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

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

Name of Applicant: Grant & Savanna Slick_________________ Date: January 6, 2021_____

Location/Legal Description: A Tract of land in Section Twenty-nine (29), Range One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.29.22.020_____________

Project Proposal: Operate a short-term transient rental in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2)

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

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? __County Rd #75________________________________________

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___Remains same as 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? _Will be checked in spring________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __County Rd #75 and on-site parking________________________

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 ( ) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied (X) January 6, 2021

_____________________________________

Date Tom Mio

Chair, Planning Commission

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

Motion to Deny: M/S/P Nelson/Head. Nelson, Johnson, Head: in favor. Horntvedt, Mio: opposed. Marhula: abstained. Motion passes.

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Nelson/Head

November 4, 2020

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 7, 2020 – M/S/P McFarlane/Horntvedt

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

– None

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-07CU by Ryan Kerr, Dennis King, and Sunset Lodge, LLC: Tracts of land in Government Lot 3, Section Two (2), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, and Range Thirty-Three (33) West, Parcel IDs# 06.02.14.040, 06.02.14.030 and 06.02.14.020. Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of repairing shoreline damage. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Mr. Stromlund explained that the applicants would like to place riprap along their shoreline to protect from further erosion. The applicants were not present at the meeting but Mr. Stromlund explained that if the Commission had questions, the applicants would be available for a conference call. The Planning Commission discussed the application and determined they had enough information that they did need to call the applicant.

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

Name of Applicant: Ryan Kerr; Dennis King; Sunset Lodge LLC_ Date: Nov. 4, 2020

Location/Legal Description: The North ½ of the South ½ of the South ½ of Government Lot 3; the North 115’ of the South 165’ of Government Lot 3; The South ½ of the North ½ of the South ½ of Government Lot 3, Section Two (2), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty three (33) West – Parcel IDs# 06.02.14.030; 06.12.14.040; 06.02.14.020.

Project Proposal: Place more than 10 cubic yards of material in the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of rip-rap. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

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

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? Saves shoreline.

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

Why or why not? Saves shoreline.