March 4, 2020

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 5, 2020 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Planning Commission – Old Business 

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

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

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

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

Mr. Horntvedt moved on to the Findings of Facts. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? _Improve communications__________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x )

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: Must meet FCC guidelines for  communication towers, must meet FAA guidelines for communications towers_________________________________________________ 

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

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

_____________________________________ 

Ken Horntvedt 

Acting Chair, Planning Commission

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

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. 

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

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

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

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-03CU by J & L Hennum, Inc.: The  Vacated Plat of Jesme’s Addition to Riverview in Section Twenty-four (24), Township  One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit development  consisting of recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation  Zoning District. 

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

Motion to table: M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Motion to close Planning Commission meeting 

Motion to open Board of Adjustment meeting 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

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

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

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

Hearing no more discussion on the variance, Horntvedt moved on to the Findings of Facts. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Michael and Bonny Edin Date: March 4, 2020 Parcel #: 02.52.01.050 Variance Application #: 20-02V 

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Existing parcels___________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _No change________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Lot sizes__________________________ 

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

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _No change_______________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Original plat, existing buildings______ 

Condition(s):  

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( )

___3-4-2020_________________ _____________________________  Date Ken Horntvedt 

Acting Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to Approve as presented: Marhula/Nelson 

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

February 5, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on February 5, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Marshall Nelson,  Dave Marhula, Scott Head, Wes Johnson and Ken Horntvedt. Members 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 table Preliminary Plat until the next meeting, removing it from today’s agenda Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 8, 2020 

M/S/P Horntvedt/Nelson 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

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

Blair Ransom of Powder River Development came forward to explain the request. The request is  to place a cell tower on Tom LeVasseur’s property. He explained that this is a part of nationwide  effort to place cell towers to aid in first responders.  

Discussion between Mr. Ransom and the Commission ensued. They discussed the height of the  tower, guyed wires, lights and placement.  

Mr. Mio opened up the meeting to public comments. Members of the public expressed  opposition to the request. They expressed concern over placement of the tower, property value  and health concerns. Alternate tower sites were proposed by the public. Two letters from the  public were read into the record in opposition to the request.  

Motion to Table the request: M/S/P Marhula/Nelson 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. 

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Adjournment: M/S/P Nelson/Horntvedt

January 8, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on January 8, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Marshall Nelson,  Dave Marhula, Reed McFarlane, Wes Johnson and Ken Horntvedt. Members absent: Scott Head 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: November 6, 2019 

M/S/P McFarlane/Johnson 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

Consideration of Variance #20-01V by Ballard’s Resort Inc: The South 75 feet of  Lot 8, and the North 33 feet of Lot 7, Riverview Plat, Section Twenty-four (24),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, and Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.50.00.070. Applicant is requesting a variance as required by  Section 1012 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to replace an  existing structure with a new structure that will exceed the allowable density  within the shoreland area of the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an Agricultural  River segment

Gary Moeller came forward to explain the request. Mr. Moeller explained that they would like to  replace the current structure with a 12 unit complex: one structure with twelve, 1 bedroom units.  They would be adding 18 beds to their resort. They plan to do this project in phases, but are  seeking permission for the entire improvement now. Discussion ensued between the Board and  Mr. Moeller. Common area, cooking facilities, number of stories and density were discussed. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further discussion. Hearing none, 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: Ballard’s Resort, Inc. Date: January 8, 2020 Parcel #: 19.50.00.070 Variance Application #: 20-01V 

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? ____Resort area_______________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ________Resort area_____________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _________Shape and size of lot_____________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ____Shape and size of lot________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ___Will not. Remains resort area____________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ___Update to current standards for ADA etc. Replacement  of an old building_________________________________________________________________ 

Condition(s): __Plan completed by 12/31/2025, Setback may not exceed alignment with Sportsman’s  Villas___________________________________________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) 

 January 8, 2020 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion to approve with conditions: McFarlane. 

Seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

Mio asked for motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting. M/S/P McFarlane/Nelson Mio asked for a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting. M/S/P McFarlane/Marhula Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-01CU by S & J Real Estate,  LLC: Government Lot Six (6), Section Thirty-six (36), Range One Hundred  Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 06.36.44.000.  Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401-C of  the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial  business consisting of a short-term transient rental in a Rural Residential District  (R2). 

Mr. Moeller also explained this request. They currently use the Island for shore lunches during  the summer and would now like to rent it overnight. He explained that they would like to operate  a short-term rental on Kirk Island, for 7 or more days at a time. They only plan to rent in June,  July and August. He explained that someone from the business is usually out there every day  during those months so they will be checking in on the renters while they are out there.  Discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Moeller. Septic system, number of  bedrooms, and the neighboring Special Protection parcel were discussed. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further discussion. Hearing none, Mio moved on to the  Findings of Facts.  

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

Name of Applicant: S & J Real Estate, LLC Date: January 8, 2020 

Location/Legal Description: Government Lot six (6). Section Thirty-six (36), Range One Hundred  Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 06.36.44.000. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a 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? ___Resort/recreation area_____________________________________ 

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

Why or why not?  

___________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( ) 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? ___Resort rental________________________________________ 

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

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with  Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( 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? ___With conditions___________________________________ 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __Septic inspection and must meet standards,  CUP stays with current owner, must meet MDH standards that apply_______________________ 

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

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

January 8, 2020  

 _________________________________ 

 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: McFarlane 

Motion to second: Marhula 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. 

Motion to keep officers the same. M/S/P Nelson/Johnson 

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

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete  version has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals  requesting a copy of the proceedings.

November 6, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on November 6, 2019 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 2, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #19-11V by Nick and Deanna Painovich: A tract of  land in Government Lot 13; A tract of land in the south and southwestern part of Government  Lot Thirteen (13), all within Section Ten (10), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162)  North, and Range Thirty-three (33) West, Parcel ID# 18.10.34.090 and 18.10.34.100. Applicant is requesting a variance as required by Section 603 and Section 701 of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a  deck at a 50’ setback which exceeds the allowable 15% of the structure setback to the  OHWL of Lake of the Woods, and allow the applicant to construct a water-oriented  accessory structure greater than the allowed 400 sq. ft. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

Mr. Luke came to the table to represent Mr. and Mrs. Painovich. Mr. Luke explained the  improvements that they would like to make to the property, including removing structures,  replacing structures and decks and building a new sitting area. The options that the Painoviches  presented in their application were read into the record.  

The Board and Mr. Luke discussed the options presented. Structures to be removed, structures to  remain, current square footages, the sitting area, setbacks, elevations and potential square  footages were discussed. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further discussion. Hearing none, 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: Nick and Deanna Painovich Date: November 6, 2019 Parcel #: 18.10.34.090 & .100 Variance Application #: 19-11V 

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? _Shoreline clean up and does not allow further  encroachment___________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Existing structures and water front/shoreline______ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Existing structures and shoreline________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Will not, remains residential____________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __See #3_____________________________________ 

Condition(s): ___Remove all existing structures in sketch, new sitting area cannot encroach any closer than 25ft to  OHWL, platform/decks on sketch attached to new home approved as drawn, platform/deck cannot encroach any  closer to OHWL, total area of new sitting area and attached deck/platform cannot exceed 800ft._____________ 

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 w/ conditions ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

 November 6, 2019 ______________________________  Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion to approve with conditions: McFarlane. 

Seconded by Nelson.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Adjournment: M/S/P McFarlane/Marhula 

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete  version has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals  requesting a copy of the proceedings.

October 2, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on October 2, 2019 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head,  Marshall Nelson, Dave Marhula, 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 Marhula/Head 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 4, 2019 

M/S/P Head/Johnson 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Petition to Amend the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance Application #19-01ZC by Scott Wold: A tract of land in the NE¼ of  the SE¼ Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-Two (32) West – Parcel ID#s 19.21.13.020 and 19.21.13.021. Applicant  is requesting a zone change from Special Protection to Rural Residential (R2) to  allow the construction of a dwelling and mound septic system. 

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

Mr. Wold would like to build a pole barn and small cabin with a septic system. He would like to  fill the allowable 10,00 sq ft allowed by the Wetland Conservation Act. The Commission asked  about the soils and two suitable sites for septic. Mr. Wold explained that he hired a local septic  designer to find two suitable sites for septic, they found two suitable sites but when the county  went out to verify the soils, they could not find 12” of useable soils. Mr. Wold brought s second  site designer to the site who also found 12” of useable soil but once again the county did not  verify his findings. Finally, a licensed soil scientist came out, conducted woil borings and found  no suitable sites for septic. Mr. Wold expressed his desire to be allowed to build like those  around him have. 

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Wold, topography, elevations, soils verifications, zoning and the non-permitted structures on the site were discussed. The  Commission expressed concerns the Mr. Wold was planning to run and ice fishing businees from  this lot based on the number of ice houses (5) that he was storing on his lot.  

Members of the public made commonets on this zone change request.  

Hearing no more comments or questions, the Commission moved on to the Findings of Fact.

Lake of the Woods County  

Rezoning 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Scott Wold Date: October 2, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: Tract of land in the NE¼ of the SE¼ Section Twenty-one (21), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) 

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection (SP) Proposed: Rural Residential (R-2) Parcel Number(s): 19.21.13.020 and 19.21.13.021 Application Number: 19-01ZC 

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

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

Comments: Located in National Wetland Inventory. 

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

classification? _X_Yes ___No 

Comments: North is zoned RR2 but South and East is Special Protection. 

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

 X_Yes ___No 

Comments: Will allow additional residential structures. 

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

Comments: Rural resident on a private road. 

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

Comments: Private road – REA adjacent.

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

___Yes _X_No 

Comments: Zone change would be for this applicant only. 

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

Comments: Slated for this lot only. 

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

neighborhood? ___Yes _X_No 

Comments: It will not. 

Conditions: Applicant must provide plans to meet State and county septic systems for two sites. 

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

_____________________________________ _____________ 

Tom Mio Date 

Chair, Planning Commission 

Motion made by Marshall Nelson to approve the request with the condition.  

Motion was seconded by Scott Head 

In Favor: Marshall Nelson, Scott Head, Wes Johnson 

Opposed: Tom Mio, Dave Marhula 

Motion approved with conditions 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-11CU by Edward and Donna Fish: Lot 24, Block 1, Lukes Estates, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.58.01.240. 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 commercial business  consisting of a short-term vacation rental in a Residential District (R1).

Mio asked Mr. Fish to come forward and explain his request. 

Mr. Fish explained that he would like to operate a short-term vacation rental on his property. He  is currently renting the property long-term.  

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Fish. Septic systems, sewer, parking and  house size were discussed. 

Mio asked for additional questions or comments, hearing none he moved on to the Findings of  Fact.  

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

Name of Applicant: Edward and Donna Fish Date: October 2,  2019 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 24, Block 1, Luke Estates, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.58.01.240. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-B of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of  transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Residential 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? Allow rental in resort area. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 adequate on site. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: Subject to local lodging tax. Subject to  Department of Health regulations. Must have or pass septic inspection or hook up to Sanitary  District.

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 ( ) 

October 2, 2019 _____________________________________  Date Tom Mio  Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Marhula motioned to approve with conditions. 

Seconded by Nelson. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. 

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-12CU by Craig Haukaas: Lot 8,  Block 1, Wabanica Woods Subdivision, Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred  Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 24.62.01.080.  Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to cumulatively move more than fifty  (50) cubic yards of material within the shoreland area of Wabanica Creek. Wabanica  Creek is a tributary river segment. 

Mio asked Mr. Haukaas to come forward and explain his request. 

Mr. Haukaas explained that he brought in fill to his back lot to be used as parking now and  eventually be used as a building pad. The front lot is so small that there is not much room for  anything on the front lot. 

Mio asked for additional questions or comments, hearing none he moved on to the Findings of  Fact.  

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

Name of Applicant: Craig Haukaas Date:  October 2, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 1, Wabanica Woods Subdivision, Section Seven (7),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) – Parcel ID# 24.62.01.080. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to cumulatively move more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material  within the shoreland area of Wabanica Creek.

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 building. 

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

Why or why not? _____________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

15) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Existing lot and road. 

16) 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? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

18) 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? _____________________________________________________ 

19) 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? ______________________________________________________ 

10) 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? ______________________________________________________ 

21) 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? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

October 2, 2019 _____________________________________  Date Tom Mio  Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Head motioned to approve. 

Seconded by Marhula. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. 

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion to Adjourn: M/S/P Marhula/Johnson 

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting. 

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete  version has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals  requesting a copy of the proceedings.

September 4, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on August 7, 2019 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 10, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #19-09V by Morris Point Lake View Lodge: A tract  in Government Lots 4 and 5, Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, and Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.16.23.000. Applicant is  requesting a variance as required by Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance, to replace an existing structure at less than a seventy-five (75) foot  setback to the OHWL of Lake of the Woods, and less than the required fifty (50) foot  setback from the road right-of-way of 42nd Avenue NW. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

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

Mr. Holte explained that he would like replace an old building with a new one. He explained that  he would like to keep the building the same as it currently is as one side as a cabin and one side  as a storage shed. 

Mr. Holte explained that if he got approval for the building that he would move the building five  feet farther away from the ordinary high-water level. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Holte and the Board. The board asked questions regarding about  where the road right of way is located. Discussion then turned to that a portion of 42nd Ave NW  may have to be abandoned to verify that the building is not located in the right of way.  Discussion then turned to what Mr. Holte can do without a variance. 

Land and Water Planning director Josh Stromlund mentioned that the building could be located  within the right of way and that the board should use caution about granting a variance for a  structure that they don’t know if it is within the right of way or not.

The board then discussed tabling the request till the next meeting to allow for the Lake of the  Woods County Highway department to survey the right of way near the building and also for the  county board to considered abandoning a portion of 42nd NW.  

Motion made by Marhula to table the request until the next meeting. 

Motion seconded by Nelson. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of  Adjustments.  

Motion made by Horntvedt to close Board of Adjustment. 

Motion seconded by Marhula. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-09CU by Scott Wold: A tract of  land in the NE¼ of the SE¼, Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.21.13.020. Applicant  is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401A of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to develop an area for the  construction of a 40’ x 60’ dwelling structure with a mound septic system in an area  that is zoned as Special Protection (SP). 

Mio asked Mr. Wold to come to the table. 

Mio asked Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund how the meeting should proceed with the meeting. 

Land and Water Director stated that he had prepared a note to be read into the record. Mio Read  the note into the record. The note stated that based on legal advice obtained that the Land and  Water Planning office should not of accepted a Conditional Use Permit for a use that is not  allowed by the use table for a special protection district located in the Lake of the Wood County  Zoning Ordinance. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Wold and the Board. Mr. Wold outlined his timeline of the  process to obtain the property and attempt to obtain all of the required permits.  The Board then gave Mr. Wold the option to apply for a zone change on the property.

Discussion then ensued between the board and Mr. Wold. 

Mio then asked if anybody in attendance had a comment. Carl Olson stated that he was not in  favor of the request and that his neighbor Jared Martinson also was not in favor as well. 

Discussion between the Board and Mr. Wold to outlined the procedure that Mr. Wold would  need to go through to apply for the Zone Change. 

Mio asked the Board for their recommendation. 

The board stated that if there are 2 sites for a standard septic system and he went through the  zone change process and all of the requirements for a zone change are met that they would  recommend the request to the county board. 

Mio then proceeded to the next request. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-10CU by Nels Holte: Lots 5 and 6,  Block 6, Morris Point Estates Subdivision in Section Twenty (20), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.69.06.050,  19.69.06.060. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 401D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a  Commercial Planned Unit Development in an area that is zoned as Commercial  Recreation. 

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

Mr. Holte explained that he would like to construct a 4-plex commercial planned unit  development with transient rental of the structure or long-term rental of the structure. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Holte and the Board. The board asked questions regarding how  the sewage would be handled for the structure. Discussion then turned to why a conditional use  permit is need for a parcel that is zoned as commercial. 

Mike Reed then stated his frustrations with the need for a conditional use permit on  commercially zoned property.  

Discussion between the board member then stated the need for commercial property to go  through the conditional use process when a commercial planned unit development is proposed on  a parcel. 

Planning Commission member Reed McFarlane made a motion to proceed to the findings of  fact. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Nels Holte Date: August 7, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 5 and 6, Block 6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID#  19.69.06.050, 19.69.06.060 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to create a Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting  of a 4-plex transient rental cabin. 

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

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

Why or why not? To meet state regulations. 

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. 

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? Already exists. 

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

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

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

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 meet state and county specs.  

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 required. 

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for  the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from  adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? 4’ x 8’ proposed. 

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 county road 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 (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) 

August 7, 2019 _____________________________  Date Tom Mio  Chair, Planning Commission

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  Motion made by Marhula to approve as Presented. 

Motion seconded by Nelson. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

With no further business for the Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board  of Adjustment.  

Adjournment: M/S/P McFarlane/Head 

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete  version has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals  requesting a copy of the proceedings.

September 4, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on September 4, 2019 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken  Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, 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 Marhula/Head 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 7, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Board of Adjustment – Old Business 

– Consideration of Variance #19-09V by Morris Point Lake View Lodge: A tract  in Government Lots 4 and 5, Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, and Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.16.23.000. Applicant is  requesting a variance as required by Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance, to replace an existing structure at less than a seventy-five (75) foot  setback to the OHWL of Lake of the Woods, and less than the required fifty (50) foot  setback from the road right-of-way of 42nd Avenue NW. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

Mio explained that this request was tabled at the last meeting because the Board needed more  information about the road right-of-way and where the end of the County Road is located.  

Mr. Stromlund indicated that the section of road the structure is setback from still requires a 20’  setback. 

Mio asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, he moved on to the  Findings of Fact. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Morris Point Lake View Lodge Date: September 4, 2019  Parcel #: 19.16.23.000 Variance Application #: 19-09V

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? Moving further back from OHW and  encroaching no further on Road RW________ 

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? Existing building location and water  frontage 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Existing building location and prior  regulations 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Will not; remain the same______________ 6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Building improvements and location______ Condition(s):  

Cannot encroach any closer to Road RW, Septic check must be completed and upgraded if  necessary, completed by 12/31/2020____________________________________________ 

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 ( ) 

September 4, 2019 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

Consideration of Variance #19-10 by Brush Island Properties, Inc.: A tract in  Government Lot 5, Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight  (168) North, Range Thirty-three (33)W being part of Outlot A of Brush Island, Parcel  ID#03.51.50.230. Applicant is requesting a variance as required by Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to construct a structure at less than  a seventy-five (75) foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of  Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Mio asked Aaron Kolling to come to the table and explain their request. 

Mr. Kolling would like to build a home on a peninsula and the home they would like to build  does not fit into the building envelope of the site. They would like to be closer than the 75’  setback from the OHWM. He stated approximately 20% of the house would encroach closer than  the 75’ setback. He proposed two different site plans for the Board to consider. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Kolling. Septic, cabin placement, future plans and  elevations were discussed. 

Mio asked for public comment. Gregg Hennum made comments in favor of this variance.  Hearing no more comments or questions, the Board moved on to Findings of Fact. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Brush Island Properties Inc Date: September 4, 2019  Parcel #: 03.51.50.230 Variance Application #: 19-10V 

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? Seasonal recreation area______________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential cabin/home site____________ 

5. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Peninsula shape and size____________ 

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

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Will not change_____________________ 6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and shape___________________ Condition(s):  

_1) Must use either site #1 or Site #2 plans submitted. 2) Maximum encroachment must not be less  than 62’______________________________________________________________________ 

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 ( )  September 4, 2019 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Horntvedt to approve with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Marhula. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passed.  

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Adjournment: M/S/P Head/Johnson 

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete  version has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals  requesting a copy of the proceedings.

August 7, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on August 7, 2019 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 10, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #19-09V by Morris Point Lake View Lodge: A tract  in Government Lots 4 and 5, Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, and Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.16.23.000. Applicant is  requesting a variance as required by Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance, to replace an existing structure at less than a seventy-five (75) foot  setback to the OHWL of Lake of the Woods, and less than the required fifty (50) foot  setback from the road right-of-way of 42nd Avenue NW. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

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

Mr. Holte explained that he would like replace an old building with a new one. He explained that  he would like to keep the building the same as it currently is as one side as a cabin and one side  as a storage shed. 

Mr. Holte explained that if he got approval for the building that he would move the building five  feet farther away from the ordinary high-water level. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Holte and the Board. The board asked questions regarding about  where the road right of way is located. Discussion then turned to that a portion of 42nd Ave NW  may have to be abandoned to verify that the building is not located in the right of way.  Discussion then turned to what Mr. Holte can do without a variance. 

Land and Water Planning director Josh Stromlund mentioned that the building could be located  within the right of way and that the board should use caution about granting a variance for a  structure that they don’t know if it is within the right of way or not.

The board then discussed tabling the request till the next meeting to allow for the Lake of the  Woods County Highway department to survey the right of way near the building and also for the  county board to considered abandoning a portion of 42nd NW.  

Motion made by Marhula to table the request until the next meeting. 

Motion seconded by Nelson. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of  Adjustments.  

Motion made by Horntvedt to close Board of Adjustment. 

Motion seconded by Marhula. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-09CU by Scott Wold: A tract of  land in the NE¼ of the SE¼, Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.21.13.020. Applicant  is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401A of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to develop an area for the  construction of a 40’ x 60’ dwelling structure with a mound septic system in an area  that is zoned as Special Protection (SP). 

Mio asked Mr. Wold to come to the table. 

Mio asked Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund how the meeting should proceed with the meeting. 

Land and Water Director stated that he had prepared a note to be read into the record. Mio Read  the note into the record. The note stated that based on legal advice obtained that the Land and  Water Planning office should not of accepted a Conditional Use Permit for a use that is not  allowed by the use table for a special protection district located in the Lake of the Wood County  Zoning Ordinance. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Wold and the Board. Mr. Wold outlined his timeline of the  process to obtain the property and attempt to obtain all of the required permits.  The Board then gave Mr. Wold the option to apply for a zone change on the property.

Discussion then ensued between the board and Mr. Wold. 

Mio then asked if anybody in attendance had a comment. Carl Olson stated that he was not in  favor of the request and that his neighbor Jared Martinson also was not in favor as well. 

Discussion between the Board and Mr. Wold to outlined the procedure that Mr. Wold would  need to go through to apply for the Zone Change. 

Mio asked the Board for their recommendation. 

The board stated that if there are 2 sites for a standard septic system and he went through the  zone change process and all of the requirements for a zone change are met that they would  recommend the request to the county board. 

Mio then proceeded to the next request. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-10CU by Nels Holte: Lots 5 and 6,  Block 6, Morris Point Estates Subdivision in Section Twenty (20), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.69.06.050,  19.69.06.060. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 401D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a  Commercial Planned Unit Development in an area that is zoned as Commercial  Recreation. 

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

Mr. Holte explained that he would like to construct a 4-plex commercial planned unit  development with transient rental of the structure or long-term rental of the structure. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Holte and the Board. The board asked questions regarding how  the sewage would be handled for the structure. Discussion then turned to why a conditional use  permit is need for a parcel that is zoned as commercial. 

Mike Reed then stated his frustrations with the need for a conditional use permit on  commercially zoned property.  

Discussion between the board member then stated the need for commercial property to go  through the conditional use process when a commercial planned unit development is proposed on  a parcel. 

Planning Commission member Reed McFarlane made a motion to proceed to the findings of  fact. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Nels Holte Date: August 7, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 5 and 6, Block 6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID#  19.69.06.050, 19.69.06.060 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to create a Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting  of a 4-plex transient rental cabin. 

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

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

Why or why not? To meet state regulations. 

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. 

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? Already exists. 

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

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

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

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 meet state and county specs.  

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 required. 

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for  the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from  adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? 4’ x 8’ proposed. 

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 county road 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 (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) 

August 7, 2019 _____________________________  Date Tom Mio  Chair, Planning Commission

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  Motion made by Marhula to approve as Presented. 

Motion seconded by Nelson. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

With no further business for the Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board  of Adjustment.  

Adjournment: M/S/P McFarlane/Head 

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete  version has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals  requesting a copy of the proceedings.

August 7, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on August 7, 2019 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 10, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #19-09V by Morris Point Lake View Lodge: A tract  in Government Lots 4 and 5, Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, and Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.16.23.000. Applicant is  requesting a variance as required by Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance, to replace an existing structure at less than a seventy-five (75) foot  setback to the OHWL of Lake of the Woods, and less than the required fifty (50) foot  setback from the road right-of-way of 42nd Avenue NW. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

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

Mr. Holte explained that he would like replace an old building with a new one. He explained that  he would like to keep the building the same as it currently is as one side as a cabin and one side  as a storage shed. 

Mr. Holte explained that if he got approval for the building that he would move the building five  feet farther away from the ordinary high-water level. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Holte and the Board. The board asked questions regarding about  where the road right of way is located. Discussion then turned to that a portion of 42nd Ave NW  may have to be abandoned to verify that the building is not located in the right of way.  Discussion then turned to what Mr. Holte can do without a variance. 

Land and Water Planning director Josh Stromlund mentioned that the building could be located  within the right of way and that the board should use caution about granting a variance for a  structure that they don’t know if it is within the right of way or not.

The board then discussed tabling the request till the next meeting to allow for the Lake of the  Woods County Highway department to survey the right of way near the building and also for the  county board to considered abandoning a portion of 42nd NW.  

Motion made by Marhula to table the request until the next meeting. 

Motion seconded by Nelson. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of  Adjustments.  

Motion made by Horntvedt to close Board of Adjustment. 

Motion seconded by Marhula. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-09CU by Scott Wold: A tract of  land in the NE¼ of the SE¼, Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.21.13.020. Applicant  is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401A of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to develop an area for the  construction of a 40’ x 60’ dwelling structure with a mound septic system in an area  that is zoned as Special Protection (SP). 

Mio asked Mr. Wold to come to the table. 

Mio asked Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund how the meeting should proceed with the meeting. 

Land and Water Director stated that he had prepared a note to be read into the record. Mio Read  the note into the record. The note stated that based on legal advice obtained that the Land and  Water Planning office should not of accepted a Conditional Use Permit for a use that is not  allowed by the use table for a special protection district located in the Lake of the Wood County  Zoning Ordinance. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Wold and the Board. Mr. Wold outlined his timeline of the  process to obtain the property and attempt to obtain all of the required permits.  The Board then gave Mr. Wold the option to apply for a zone change on the property.

Discussion then ensued between the board and Mr. Wold. 

Mio then asked if anybody in attendance had a comment. Carl Olson stated that he was not in  favor of the request and that his neighbor Jared Martinson also was not in favor as well. 

Discussion between the Board and Mr. Wold to outlined the procedure that Mr. Wold would  need to go through to apply for the Zone Change. 

Mio asked the Board for their recommendation. 

The board stated that if there are 2 sites for a standard septic system and he went through the  zone change process and all of the requirements for a zone change are met that they would  recommend the request to the county board. 

Mio then proceeded to the next request. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-10CU by Nels Holte: Lots 5 and 6,  Block 6, Morris Point Estates Subdivision in Section Twenty (20), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.69.06.050,  19.69.06.060. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 401D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a  Commercial Planned Unit Development in an area that is zoned as Commercial  Recreation. 

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

Mr. Holte explained that he would like to construct a 4-plex commercial planned unit  development with transient rental of the structure or long-term rental of the structure. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Holte and the Board. The board asked questions regarding how  the sewage would be handled for the structure. Discussion then turned to why a conditional use  permit is need for a parcel that is zoned as commercial. 

Mike Reed then stated his frustrations with the need for a conditional use permit on  commercially zoned property.  

Discussion between the board member then stated the need for commercial property to go  through the conditional use process when a commercial planned unit development is proposed on  a parcel. 

Planning Commission member Reed McFarlane made a motion to proceed to the findings of  fact. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Nels Holte Date: August 7, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 5 and 6, Block 6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID#  19.69.06.050, 19.69.06.060 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to create a Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting  of a 4-plex transient rental cabin. 

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

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

Why or why not? To meet state regulations. 

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. 

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? Already exists. 

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

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

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

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 meet state and county specs.  

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 required. 

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for  the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from  adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? 4’ x 8’ proposed. 

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 county road 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 (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) 

August 7, 2019 _____________________________  Date Tom Mio  Chair, Planning Commission

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  Motion made by Marhula to approve as Presented. 

Motion seconded by Nelson. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

With no further business for the Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board  of Adjustment.  

Adjournment: M/S/P McFarlane/Head 

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete  version has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals  requesting a copy of the proceedings.

July 10, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on July 10, 2019 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 5, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

Wes Johnson – Steve Cyrus Request 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-06CU by Elizabeth Carlson: The  North 620 feet of the NE¼ of the NE¼ of Section Thirty (30), Township One  Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, Parcel ID#  02.30.11.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 401D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a  commercial planned unit development consisting of a recreational vehicle camping  park located in a Commercial Recreation Zoning District. 

Mio asked Ms. Carlson to come to the table and explain her request. 

Ms. Carlson explained that she would like expand her current recreational vehicle campground  with 17 additional recreational vehicle campsites to her existing 17-unit campground. 

Discussion ensued between Ms. Carlson and the Board. The board asked questions regarding  how the sewage would be handled for the campground. Ms. Carlson explained that she has  talked with Loren Horner to construct a mound system that will meet code. Discussion then ensued about the need for a storm shelter and also if the proposed addition would meet the  allowed density. 

Land and Water Planning director Josh Stromlund mentioned that the proposed addition will  need to have a storm shelter of evacuation plan. Also, Mr. Stromlund stated that Ms. Carlson’s  proposed addition was well below the density that she is allowed.  

Mio then read a letter into the record from Jim Merickel and Lorraine Carlson. Mio then asked if there was anybody present that would like to comment on the request. Doug  Herzog then stated that he supported the request and had verbal consent from other neighbors  that they supported the request.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the  Findings of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: Elizabeth Carlson Date: July 10, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: The North 620 feet of the NE¼ of the NE¼ of Section Thirty (30),  Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, Parcel ID#  02.30.11.000. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit development consisting of a  recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation 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? Commercial area. 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Meet Minnesota Department of Health standards. 

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? No change. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? New system to be designed and installed. 

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? Working with Department of Natural Resources for additional spaces for docking. 

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? ________________________________________________________________ 

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. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: Meet Minnesota Department of Health and  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 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 ( ) 

 July 10, 2018 _____________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Nelson. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-07CU by Thomas and Erin Olson:  A tract of land in Government Lot 3, Section Thirty (30), Township One Hundred  Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West, Parcel ID# 16.30.32.020. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401C of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate short-term vacation rental in  a Rural Residential District (R-2). 

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

Mr. Olson explained that he would like to operate a Short-term Vacation Rental. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Olson and the Board. The board asked questions regarding the  septic system on the property. Mr. Olson explained that he was going to have a new system  installed. The board then asked if Mr. Olson would be managing the property himself or having  somebody manage it for him. Mr. Olson explained that he would be managing it himself. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the  Findings of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: Thomas and Erin Olson Date: July 10, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Government Lot 3, Section Thirty (30), Township  One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West, Parcel ID# 16.30.32.020.

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of  transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Rural Residential District (R2). 

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

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? To use existing roads and driveway. 

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

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? New system to be designed.

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 designed for project. 

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? 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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No greater than 4’ x 8’. 

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: CUP expires on sale or exchange of property. 

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

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

 July 10, 2019 ____________________   Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by McFarlane to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-08CU by Gregg Hennum: A tract  of land in Government Lot 1, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.25.21.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401D of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit  development consisting of recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial  Recreation Zoning District. 

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

Mr. Hennum explained that he would like to construct a 34-site recreational vehicle campground  that would be seasonal with playground and dumpsters on site. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Hennum and the Board. The board asked questions regarding  how the sewage would be handled for the campground. Mr. Hennum stated that he will hopefully  get approval to connect into the Wheelers Point Sanitary District.  

Density was then discussed regarding how many units would be allowed. Based on current  density standards Mr. Hennum would be allowed 28 units. It was discussed that the Land and  Water Planning office is looking to change density standards that may allow for 2 additional  units however this is still in the works and may or may not be approved. 

Mio then asked if there was anybody present that would like to comment on the request. Joyce  Beckel then asked about if the possibility of if the sites would be allowed to be used in the  winter. Mr. Hennum stated that the campground rules do not allow winter use and that the water  will be shut off and drained and the electricity will be turned off for the winter and that the  campground will not be plowed in the winter time. 

Al Thompson, owner of Lake of the Woods Marine to the west, stated that his concern is a fence  up to his property. Mr. Thompson stated that he and Mr. Hennum had spoken about a fence and  agreed that it would need to be constructed to be 8’ tall and be enclosed all the way to the bottom  so no pets could get under it into his business. Mr. Thompson also stated that he could speak as  to the possibility of connection to the Wheelers Point Sanitary district. He stated that the district  is putting in stubs for business that are outside of the current district to connect after 1 year  assuming they have the capacity.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the  Findings of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: Gregg Hennum Date: July 10, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Government Lot 1, Section Twenty-five (25),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID#  19.25.21.010. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit development consisting of a  recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation 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? 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? To meet Minnesota Department of Health standards. 

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. 

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 off Bur Oak Road.

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

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

Why or why not?  

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

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, septic or sanitary sewer 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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not?  

_________________________________________________________________ 

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent  properties? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Natural on the North side and 8’ fence on 3 other sides. 

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the  number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent  properties to the extent possible? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? In application a 3’ x 5’ with lights 

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. 8’ to ground fence on south and west sides also extend east side fence to ground.  2. Approved to current density standards.  

3. Must meet Minnesota Department of Health regulations. 

4. Must meet 3000 square foot lot size. 

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 ( ) 

 July 10, 2019 ________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Nelson. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

Motion made by Horntvedt to close Board of Adjustment. 

Motion seconded by Head 

All in favor, motion passed. 

Mio opened the Board of Adjustment meeting. 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

Consideration of Variance #19-03V by Steven and Deborah Cyrus: A tract of  land in the NE¼ of the NW¼, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.28.21.040.  Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 603 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a deck at a fifty (50) foot  setback which exceeds the allowable 15% of the existing setback of the structure to  Bostic Creek. The Bostic Creek is a Tributary River Segment 

Mio asked Mr. Cyrus to come to the table and explain the request. Mr. Cyrus stated that he wants  to construct a 12’ deck on his new trailer house. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Cyrus and the Board. The Board asked about the location of the  deck and if it could be moved to make it not encroach as far towards the river.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Steven and Deborah Cyrus Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 19.28.21.040 Variance Application #: 19-03V 

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 ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Does not meet setback. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential/resort area. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Size and shape of property. 

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

YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Request is outside of regulations. 

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? See #3. 

Condition(s): ________________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

APPROVED ( ) DENIED ( x ) 

July 10, 2019 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by Nelson to approve the request.  

Motion seconded by Horntvedt. 

McFarlane, Mio, Marhula, and Head opposed. Motion denied. 

Consideration of Variance #19-04V by Steven Theis: A tract of land in the  NE¼SE¼ of Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North,  Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 24.18.31.000. Applicant is requesting a  variance from Section 501.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to create a lot of less than five (5) acres in size in a Rural Residential District (R-2). 

Mio asked Mr. Theis to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Theis explained that he is looking to sell the east side of Hooper Creek which is 1.8 acres  that does not meet the 5-acre minimum lot size to sell in a rural residential district. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Theis and the Board. The Board asked about why he can’t sell a  5-acre tract. Mr. Theis then explained that he would like to build on the other side of the river  sometime in the future. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Steven Theis Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 24.18.31.000 Variance Application #: 19-04V

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? Variance meets intent. 

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

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

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Hooper Creek – not public waters. 

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

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? Hooper Creek and land layout. 

Condition(s):  

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

 July 10, 2019 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Horntvedt to approve the request.  

Motion seconded by Nelson  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

Consideration of Variance #19-05V by Peter Brown: Lot 5, Block 3, Rocky Point  Townsite, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range  Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 14.50.03.050. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow an  addition that will not meet the required 75’ setback from Lake of the Woods and will  not meet the required 10’ setback from the lot line. Lake of the Woods is a General  Development Lake. 

Mio asked Mr. Brown to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Brown explained that he would like to enclose his existing deck on the front of the cabin. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Brown. The board explained that one issue that  they had with the request is that if they were granting the variance it would allow Mr. Brown to  be closer to the water than any other property in the area and would cause all the others to want  to be closer as a result.  

Mio then read a letter into the record from Renee Chapman. 

Mio then asked if anybody in attendance had any comments on the request.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Peter Brown Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 14.50.03.050 Variance Application #: 19-05V 

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 ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Encroaches on setbacks. 

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

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

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Adjacent properties are at approximately the  same setback. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Landowner request of a change. 

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

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

Condition(s):  

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

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

APPROVED ( ) DENIED ( x ) 

 July 10, 2019 _____________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to deny.  

Motion seconded by Head 

All in favor, Nelson opposed. Motion carried. 

Consideration of Variance #19-06V by Tim Stauffenecker: The South ½ of Lots 8  and 9, Rocky Point Townsite, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three  (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 14.50.05.081. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to allow a new structure that will not meet the required 20’ setback from  the Right-of-Way (ROW) of Beach Lane NW. Lake of the Woods is a General  Development Lake. 

Mio asked Mr. Stauffenecker to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Stauffenecker explained that he would like to bring in a new modular home to replace the  existing house that was constructed in 1947. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Stauffenecker. The board asked who maintains  Beach Lane NW. Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund explained that Beach Lane  NW is a road that was created during the platting of the area and is not maintained by the county.  

The board then asked Mr. Stauffenecker why he could not move the house farther back in his  yard and give him a larger front yard instead of having a back yard. Mr. Stauffenecker explained  that it would be difficult to use the existing buildings. 

The board then asked Mr. Stauffenecker what he planned to do with septic from the new  structure. Mr. Stauffenecker then explained that he has been having problems with his existing  septic system and has no room for a mound system, and plans to install two concrete holding  tanks. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Tim Stauffenecker Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 14.50.05.081 Variance Application #: 19-06V

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? Variance with conditions will meet intent. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condition(s): New building no closer to Beach Avenue than current building. 

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 ( ) 

 July 10, 2019 _____________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Head to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Johnson  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

Consideration of Variance #19-07V by Downrigger Properties, LLC: That part  of the Northeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty-one  (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West,  lying and being West of the center of the channel of Bostic Creek – Parcel ID#  19.21.31.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to construct a roofed pavilion that will not  meet the required 75’ setback from Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

Mio asked Karen Pierce to come to the table and explain the request.  

Ms. Pierce explained that they would like to put up a roofed structure over an existing cement  slab and use the roofed area for shore lunches. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Ms. Pierce. The board asked if the planned roof would  be shingled or if it would be sheet metal and if the planned structure would have any walls. Ms. Pierce explained that the structure is not planned to have any walls or be enclosed in any way  and that it would be a shingled roof to match the existing structures on site. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Downrigger Properties, LLC Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 19.21.31.000 Variance Application #: 19-07V

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Resort/commercial property. 

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

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location to shoreline. 

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

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? Lot size and location. 

Condition(s): Roof only – can never enclose. Completed by 12/31/19. 

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 ( ) 

 July 10, 2019 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Nelson.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

Consideration of Variance #19-08V by Lyle and Pauline Longtin: A tract in the  NW ¼ of Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 14.05.31.040. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to construct a screened porch that will not meet the required 10’ setback  from the lot line. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

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

Mr. Longtin explained that they would like to put up a 12’ x 18’ Screen Poarch that would be  within a foot of the lot line.

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Longtin. The board then asked Mr. Longtin why  he could not move the cabin to meet the setback. Mr. Longtin stated that he would like to  preserve the open space of his existing property for his grandchildren to play in. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed 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: Lyle and Pauline Longtin Date: July 10, 2019 Parcel #: 14.05.31.040 Variance Application #: 19-08V

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 ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Further encroachment on the lot line. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential/seasonal use. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Has enough room to move the building. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? Request for additional encroachment. 

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? See #1, #3, and #4. 

Condition(s):  

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

APPROVED ( ) DENIED ( x ) 

 July 10, 2019 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to deny the request.  

Motion seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

With no further business for the Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of  Adjustment.  

Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head 

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings.