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

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

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

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

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods
County Zoning Ordinance to move more than 10 cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone
of Lake of the Woods and to move more than 50 cubic yards of material outside the shore impact zone
of Lake of the Woods for the construction of a dike to protect the property from flooding. Lake of the
Woods is a General Development Lake.

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

Why or why not? Shoreland protection.

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

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

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation
and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative
cover? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? No change.

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

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

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to
accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the
Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft
that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material
that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought?
YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?
YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size
requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?
YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how
the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
The specific conditions of approval are as follows: ____________________________________________

---

---

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

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

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

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

7:00 P.M. on November 2, 2022 

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

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

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 5, 2022- Motion to approve- Marshall/Dave. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – Old Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-14CU by Blue Line Consulting, LLC: The  NW¼NW¼, Section Nine (9), Township One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID # 17.09.22.000. 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 Short-Term  Vacation Rental in a Rural Residential Development (R2) Zoning District. 

David Hahn was present to discuss this request with the board and to answer any questions. Tom Mio asked for  clarification about window type being sliders. A suggestion about adding an exterior stairway for the 2^nd floor in the event  of a fire was deemed a good idea by David. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.  

Name of Applicant: Blue Line Consulting, LLC (David Hahn) Date: November 15, 2022 Location/Legal Description: NW¼NW¼, Section 9, T. 162N, R. 34W – Parcel ID # 17.09.22.000 

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

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

Why or why not? Rural Residential development. 

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Access via 44^th Street NW. 

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

Why or why not? Rural residential. 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to  accommodate the project proposal? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Sized for a 5-bedroom dwelling. 

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 septic. 

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 necessary. 

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? Not planned or needed. 

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. The Conditional Use Permit terminates upon sale or transfer of the property. 

2. Quiet time from 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. 

3. Must post local contact information in the dwelling. 

4. Must meet Minnesota Department of Health regulations. 

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-15CU by Dale and Connie Peterson: A tract in  the Northeast Corner of Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One hundred Sixty-three  (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID # 14.05.31.010. Applicant is requesting a  Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to construct an inland harbor connected to Lake of the Woods and to cumulatively move  more than the allowed amounts of material within and outside of the shore impact zone. Lake of the  Woods is a General Development Lake.

Dale and Connie Peterson were present to discuss their request with the board. Dale noted they are building a harbor and a  berm to enhance and protect their property from high water events. Permits from DNR and Army Corp are all presently in  order. The harbor will allow for 13 total slips. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.  

Name of Applicant: Dale and Connie Peterson Date: November 2, 2022 

Location/Legal Description: A tract in the Northeast Corner of Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One  hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID # 14.05.31.010 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct an inland harbor connected to Lake of the Woods and to cumulatively  move more than the allowed amounts of material within and outside of the shore impact zone. Lake of the Woods is  a General Development Lake. 

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

Why or why not? Resort development, additional safe harbor. 

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? Oversight by DNR and Corps of Engineers, permits all in place. 

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

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

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? Via DNR and Corps permits and design. 

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Access via County Road 17. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Creation of a safe harbor. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Campsite boats are already using lake and permit limits number of slips in harbor.

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? None needed. 

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

Why or why not? None needed. 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Follow permit designs. 

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 Condition (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Ken/Wes. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-16CU by Stacey Manning: Lot 1, Block 3 River  Oaks Plat, Section One (1), Township One hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West — Parcel ID# 23.52.03.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a Short-Term  

Vacation Rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District within the shoreland area of the  Rainy River. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment. 

Stacey and Connie Manning were present to discuss the request with the board. Stacey explained the need for a garage for  their own storage caused them to buy an adjoining property with an existing garage and a trailer home. This sparked the  opportunity to add short term rental to that new parcel. The condition of the existing septic system was questioned. The  existing system is no longer up to current requirements. Stacey noted it as a 3-bedroom trailer home. Upgrading the septic  system was discussed. A letter was read into the minutes from a John and Deb Copp in opposition to the request. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.  

Name of Applicant: Stacey and Connie Manning Date: November 2, 2022 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 3, River Oaks Plat in Section 1, T. 161N, R. 32W – Parcel ID #  23.52.03.010 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a Short-Term Vacation Rental in a Residential Development (R1)  Zoning District. 

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

Why or why not? Within the growth corridor, vacation rental. 

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? Access via Oak Harbor Drive. 

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

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) 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? But needs to be upgraded. 

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 septic system. 

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

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

Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Septic must be upgraded within 2 years from September 20, 2022. 

2. CUP terminates upon sale or transfer. 

3. No on street parking. 

4. Must list local contacts and emergency numbers. 

5. Must follow tenant rules listed in application. 

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

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

Motion to Adjourn at 7:46 PM- Monica/Marshall. All in favor. 

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

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

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

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

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment: New Business  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condition(s): 

1) Must have a septic system inspection. 

2) Additional no larger than 12’x20’. 

3) Completed by 12/31/2022. 

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Commission: New Business 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? Proposed yes/ATF not 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? For boat ramp.

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

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

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

Why or why not? Saves shoreline. 

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ The specific conditions of approval are as follows: None 

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

Approved as Presented (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) Motion to approve as presented: M/S/P Nelson/Horntvedt 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-08V by Kristine Hawkins: Lot 2,  Block 1, Harris Addition, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 19.63.01.020. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow movement of more than ten (10) cubic  yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose  of repairing shoreline damage. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

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

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

Name of Applicant: __Kristine Hawkins______________ Date: _Nov. 4, 2020 

Location/Legal Description: _Lot 2 Block 1 Harris Addition, Section Nineteen (19), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 19.63.01.020.

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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? Shoreline stabilization. 

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ The specific conditions of approval are as follows: None 

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

Approved as Presented (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) Motion to approve with conditions: M/S/P McFarlane/Horntvedt 

– Consideration of an Extension for Final Plat Submittal 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 an extension of up to nine (9) months for  submittal of Final Plat in accordance with Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance.  

Mr. Stromlund explained that Hooper Creek Development would like an extension beyond their 9  months to submit their Final Plat. The Planning Commission discussed an extension of 9 months. 

Motion to approve an extension of 9 months: M/S/P McFarlane/Nelson 

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:22 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/McFarlane

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.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on November 7, 2018 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Gerald  Levasseur, Ken Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane and Dave Marhula. Members absent: Ed Arnesen.  Others present were: Assistant Zoning Administrator Maranda Dahl.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 3, 2018 

M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-11CU by Cyrus Resort That part of  the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty (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 Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic  yards of material within the shoreland area of Bostic Creek. 

Mio asked the representative from Cyrus Resort to come to the table and explain the request. 

Mr. Hammond explained that the resort would like to fill in their pool, pour a concrete slab over  it and turn it into a basketball court. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Hammond. Amount of fill and filling process  were discussed.  

Mio asked the Board if they had 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: Cyrus Resort Date: November 7, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter  (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty (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. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Bostic 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? _Recreational___________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Safer for resort guests and chemical storage__________________ 

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? _____________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) Why or why not? __No change___________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __Complete by 12/21/2019____________  

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 ( ) 

November 7, 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 McFarlane. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

With no further items for consideration before the Planning Commission, Mio entertained a  motion to adjourn.  

Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head, meeting adjourned at 7:09 p.m.  

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. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on November 7, 2018 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Gerald  Levasseur, Ken Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane and Dave Marhula. Members absent: Ed Arnesen.  Others present were: Assistant Zoning Administrator Maranda Dahl.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 3, 2018 

M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-11CU by Cyrus Resort That part of  the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty (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 Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic  yards of material within the shoreland area of Bostic Creek. 

Mio asked the representative from Cyrus Resort to come to the table and explain the request. 

Mr. Hammond explained that the resort would like to fill in their pool, pour a concrete slab over  it and turn it into a basketball court. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Hammond. Amount of fill and filling process  were discussed.  

Mio asked the Board if they had 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: Cyrus Resort Date: November 7, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter  (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty (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. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Bostic 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? _Recreational___________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Safer for resort guests and chemical storage__________________ 

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? _____________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) Why or why not? __No change___________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __Complete by 12/21/2019____________  

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 ( ) 

November 7, 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 McFarlane. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

With no further items for consideration before the Planning Commission, Mio entertained a  motion to adjourn.  

Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head, meeting adjourned at 7:09 p.m.  

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. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund