July 1, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on July 1, 2020

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

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: June 6, 2020 – M/S/P Marhula/Nelson

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

– None

Board of Adjustment – New Business

– Consideration of Variance #20-03V by Dennis Sobolik: Lot 2, Block 1, Boundary Commission Plat No. 1 in Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West. 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 seventy-five (75) foot setback from Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Mio ask if Mr. Sobolik was present. Kelly Plaine introduced himself and indicated he was the representative for Mr. Sobolik. Mio ask Plaine to come to the table and explain the proposal.

Plaine indicated he was the son-in-law of Sobolik and they are looking at a number of upgrades on the property included screening in the deck on the lakeside of the cabin. Sobolik is 88 years old and built the cabin in 1964. We thought it would be good for him, as he is not as mobile as he used to be, to screen in the deck so he can enjoy time out there with his puzzles. It would be a nice addition to the cabin and Sobolik in his remaining years.

Questions and discussion ensued between the Board and Plaine regarding construction of the screen porch. Upon completion of the discussion, Mio asked if there were any comments from the floor.

Mio recognized Peter Brown. Brown indicated he was neutral on this request; however, he applied for the same request and his was denied. If this variance is approved, he wants a reconsideration of his request.

The Board explained that each request is different and on its own merits. He has every right to apply again if he so chooses.

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Board 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: Dennis Sobolik Date: July 1, 2020 Parcel #: 14.53.01.020 Variance Application #: 20-03V

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 (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential/lakeshore 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? No change.

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Existing footprint and eroding shoreline.

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

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Economics not part of request.

Condition(s):

1) Must stay within exact footprint of existing deck.

2) Completed by 12/31/20.

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 1, 2020 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio

Chair, Board of Adjustment

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

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:15pm. Adjournment: M/S/P McFarlane/Marhula

June 3, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 3, 2020

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 6, 2020

M/S/P Hortnvedt/Head

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

– None

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-04CU by Shawn Wendler & Shawna Brasgalla: The North 450 feet of the East 500 feet of the NE¼ of the NE¼, Section Twenty-six (26), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West. Applicant is requesting to operate a small engine repair and maintenance shop in a Rural-Residential (R-2) District.

Mr. Wendler came forward to explain his request. He explained that he would like to do small engine repair including marine, atv, automotive/oil changes/tune ups, etc. He is hoping to expand in the future if all goes well.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Wendler. Number of vehicles, slightly appearance and possible increases in shed/workspace were discussed.

Mr. Mio read a letter in favor of the request into the record.

With no further discussion the Commission moved on to the Findings of Facts.

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

Name of Applicant: Shawn Wendler_____________________ Date: June 3, 2020___________

Location/Legal Description: The North 450 feet of the East 500 feet of the NE1/4 of the NE1/4, Section 26, Township 161 North, Range 32 West – Parcel ID #23.26.11.01

Project Proposal: Operate a small engine repair and maintenance shop in a Rural-Residential (R 2) 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? _Further business________________________________________

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? __County Rd #6_________________________________________

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

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

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Used oil, antifreeze, etc. will be contained. No bathroom facilities__

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __One 2’ x 6’on building 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? _Use County Rd 6 – no change needed________________________

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _CUP stays with Shawn Wendler_________

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

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

_____________________________________

Tom Mio

Chair, Planning Commission

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

Motion to approve with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Nelson

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:25pm. Adjournment: M/S/P Nelson/McFarlane

May 6, 2020

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

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Dave Marhula, Scott Head, Tom Mio and Ken Horntvedt. Reed McFarland attended via conference call. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.

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

Approval of the Agenda:

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 4, 2020

M/S/P Marhula/Head

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

– None

Planning Commission – Old Business

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

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

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

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

Discussion between Mr. Hennum and the Commission ensued.

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

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

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

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

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

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan?

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

Why or why not? In a commercial district.

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

( ) N/A ( )

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

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? Larger trees to remain and will not change.

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

Why or why not? Commercial/recreational.

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

( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? Public sewer.

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? Private well and public sewer system.

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

Why or why not? On site plan.

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

YES (X) NO

( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? On camp sites.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1) Fence to be off property line adequate for maintenance

2) Must meet new density level (23)

3) Approved for year-round use

4) Must meet MDH requirements and approval

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

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

_____________________________________

Tom Mio

Chair, Planning Commission

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

Motion to Approve the request with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Head

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes.

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Final Plat Common Interest Community #4 A Planned Community Eagle Ridge First Supplement: a 2.26-acre tract in the SE corner of Government Lot Eight (8), Section One (1), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Oak Island). Applicant is requesting to create six (6) tracts to accompany the Sportsman’s Eagle Ridge Common Interest Community as lots for storage.

Greg Hennum then explained the request.

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Hennum.

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

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

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

Jon Waibel then explained the request.

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Waibel.

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

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

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

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

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 42^ndAvenue 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 42^ndAve 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 42^ndNW.

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 42^ndAvenue 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.

GOVERNMENT CENTER

206 8th Ave SE Baudette, MN 56623

BOARD MEMBERS

ASSESSOR

Suite #296

AUDITOR/TREASURER

Suite #260

ATTORNEY

Suite #240

COURT OF ADMINISTRATION

Suite #250

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Suite #300

HUMAN RESOURCES

IT/GIS

Suite #210

LAND & WATER

Suite #290

PUBLIC WORKS

306 8th Ave SE, Baudette, MN

RECORDER

Suite #280

SHERIFF'S OFFICE

Suite #300

SOCIAL SERVICES

Suite #200

COMMUNITY

206 8th Ave SE Baudette, MN 56623

AREA LINKS

HOW DO I...

ASSESSOR

AUDITOR

COURT OF ADMINISTRATION

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

LAND & WATER

PUBLIC WORKS

RECORDER

GOVERNMENT CENTER

206 8th Ave SE Baudette, MN 56623

BOARD MEMBERS

ASSESSOR

Suite #296

AUDITOR/TREASURER

Suite #260

ATTORNEY

Suite #240

COURT OF ADMINISTRATION

Suite #250

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Suite #300

HUMAN RESOURCES

IT/GIS

Suite #210

LAND & WATER

Suite #290

PUBLIC WORKS

306 8th Ave SE, Baudette, MN

RECORDER

Suite #280

SHERIFF'S OFFICE

Suite #300

SOCIAL SERVICES

Suite #200

COMMUNITY

206 8th Ave SE Baudette, MN 56623

AREA LINKS

HOW DO I...

ASSESSOR

AUDITOR

COURT OF ADMINISTRATION

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

LAND & WATER

PUBLIC WORKS

RECORDER

LW-Categories: Month

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on July 1, 2020

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 3, 2020

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

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

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

206 8th Ave SE
Baudette, MN 56623

206 8th Ave SE
Baudette, MN 56623

206 8th Ave SE
Baudette, MN 56623

206 8th Ave SE
Baudette, MN 56623