October 4, 2023

7:00 P.M. on October 4, 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, and. Absent Member: Marshall Nelson, 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 – Mio/ Dohmen. All in favor.

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 6, 2023- Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-15CU by Dennis Braaten and James Frohreich: Tracts in Government Lot 4, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler)- Parcel ID # 19.17.23.020 and 19.17.23.010. 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 to repair shoreline damage and to move more than 50 cubic yards of material outside the shore impact zone for the construction of a dike. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Dennis and James were 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: Dennis Braaten and James Frohreich Date: October 4, 2023

Location/Legal Description: Tract in Government Lot 4, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.17.23.020 and 19.17.23.010.

Project Proposal: Applicants are 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 to repair shoreline damage and to move more than 50 cubic yards of material outside the shore impact zone for the construction of a dike.

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 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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreline protection.

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? Remain the same.

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? Lake of the Woods 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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreline.

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Erosion protection for Lake of the Woods.

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 (X) N/A ( )

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 ( )

Motion was made by Mio to approve the request as presented and seconded by Marhula. All in favor, motion carried.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-16CU by Terry and Susanna Brateng: Lot 13, Block 1, Riverside Plat in Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty one (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID#: 24.50.01.130. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401 B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to use a Recreational Vehicle (RV) in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District on Rainy River. Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment.

Terry 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: Terry and Susanna Brateng Date: October 4, 2023

Location/Legal Description: Lot 13, Block 1, Riverside Plat in Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID#: 24.50.01.130.

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401 B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to use a Recreational Vehicle (RV) in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District on Rainy River.

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 water frontage.

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Riverside plat.

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

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

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 (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? Spell out in 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 ( ) 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. Holding tank only allowed until well is drilled and approved septic system installed.

2. CUP expires 12-31-2025 and camper must be removed.

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 made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dunnell. All in favor, motion carried.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-17CU by Dallas Schwandt (Nels Holte Agent): A tract in Government Lot Three (3), Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West- Parcel ID# 19.17.24.070 (For Reference Only). Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401 B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to

allow a commercial use consisting of a private winter ice fishing access road to Lake of the Woods in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake

Nels 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: Dallas Schwandt (Nels Holte Agent) Date: October 4, 2023

Location/Legal Description: Tract in Government Lot Three (3), Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West- Parcel ID# 19.17.24.070 (For Reference Only)

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401 B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a commercial use consisting of a private winter ice fishing access road to Lake of the Woods in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1).

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

Why or why not? Recreational 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 (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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? County Road 4.

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

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

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? 1 4×8 sign designating lake access will be placed on a seasonal basis. Dec 1 to April 30^th.

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1. CUP expires upon sale of property to others, except designated agent per application. 2. No parking or storage on access road or property.

3. Signage must state that this is a private road only.

4. No parking allowed on County Road 4.

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 made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Mio. All in favor, motion carried.

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by Dohmen. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 8:18 PM.

October 5, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on October 5, 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, and Dave Marhula. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund. Absent from the meeting was Monica Dohmen.

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: September 7, 2022- Motion to approve- Marshall/Dave. All in favor. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.

Planning Commission – Old Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-11CU by Milo Ravndalen: The SE¼SE¼ of Section Twenty (20); the NE¼NE¼ of Section Twenty-nine (29); the NW¼NW¼ of Section Twenty-eight (28); the SW¼SW¼ of Section Twenty-one (21) all within Township One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID#’s 17.20.41.000; 17.29.11.000; 17.28.22.000; 17.21.33.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining, washing, and bituminous material, in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

Milo Ravndalen was present to discuss this request with the board and to answer any questions. Neighbors Rory and Julie Hodgson had concerns in regards to safety, speed limits, signage, dust control, hours of operations and the crushing operation. County Engineer, Anthony Pirkl, was also present to discuss the road concerns as well as dust control options for the landowner. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.

Name of Applicant: Milo Ravndalen Date: October 5, 2022

Location/Legal Description: The SE¼SE¼ Section 20, NE¼NE¼ of Section 29, NW¼NW ¼ of Section 28, and the SW¼SW¼ of Section 21, all within Township 162N, Range 34W (Chilgren)

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to allow extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining, washing, crushing, and bituminous material, in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

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

Why or why not? Aggregate 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 (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? It will affect topography through mining.

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? County Road 56.

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

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? Will be required if installed.

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

Why or why not? Natural vegetation.

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

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Via County Road 56.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1. Must maintain dust control.

2. Hours limited to daylight hours.

3. Must follow proper blasting procedures including notification of residents.

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

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

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-12CU by Brandon and Alycia Fish: Lot 8, Block 1 of Lukes Estates in Section Twenty-four (24), Township One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID # 19.58.01.080. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District.

Brandon and Alycia Fish were present to discuss their request with the board. This request was first discussed at the September 7^th, 2022 meeting but the request had a few deficiencies that the board wanted the applicants to address. The applicants addressed these concerns with new egress windows and routes created/updated in the property. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.

Name of Applicant: Brandon and Alycia Fish Date: October 5, 2022 Location/Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 1, Lukes in Section 24, T. 162N, R. 32W

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to allow the operation of a short-term transient rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1).

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

Why or why not? Housing in growth corridor.

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

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

Why or why not? Meets county’s new application/requirements.

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 on Burr Oak Road

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Residential and commercial 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? On sanitary sewer 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? Sewer district and private well.

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 on site only.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1. Parking on site only, no parking on Burr Oak Road.

2. CUP terminates on transfer of title.

3. Hours of operation are as listed on 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 – Wes/Dave. All in favor.

Motion to Close Planning Commission – Open Board of Adjustment- Marshall/Nancy. All in favor. Board of Adjustment – New Business

– Consideration of Variance #22-09V by Michael and Robin Derkacht: A Tract located in the SE¼SW¼ lying Westerly of the South Branch of the Rapid River in Section Seventeen (17), Township One-hundred Fifty-eight (158) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 43.17.23.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.4 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure at less than the required one hundred fifty (150) foot setback from the South Branch of the Rapid River. The South Branch of the Rapid River is a Forested River Segment.

Robin and Michael Derkacht were present to discuss the request with the board. Neighbors Gerald (Jerry) and Iva Balitewicz were present to ask questions in regards the request. The board recognized an email correspondence between an adjoining neighbor across the river and an employee of the LWPO. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.

Name of Applicant: Michael and Robin Derkacht Date: October 5, 2022 Parcel #: 43.17.23.000 Variance Application #: 22-09V

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? New structure no closer to Rapid River than current structure.

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? Replaces existing house/residential.

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location of current house, well and other considerations.

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? It will not/no change.

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

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

Condition(s): No closer to Rapid River than 125 feet.

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 Adjourn at 8:00 PM- Marshall/ Dave. All in favor.

October 6, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

Board of Adjustment: New Business

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

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

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

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

YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Recreational Land use

________________________________________________________________________

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property? YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Building placement prior to zoning regulations

________________________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

Motion to approve with conditions – Dave/Ken. All in favor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Resort land use in commercial area ________________________________________________________________________

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

Board of Adjustment: Old Business

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

Applicant submitted a formal withdrawn for this variance in writing.

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

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

Planning Commission: New Business

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

-Church Property on US County Road

-Bituminous on Proposed Lot 1

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Commercial corridor

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

_X__Yes ___No

Comments: Adjoining businesses (on CUP’s)

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

Comments:

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change or improvement

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No additional services needed

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: Will not impede – no change

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Increased business activity (CUP’s)

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: No change

Conditions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Within commercial corridor

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Lake access

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: Lake access through wooded area- no change

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

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

___Yes _X_No

Comments: None needed

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: Will not impede

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

___Yes __X_No

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

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

Conditions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Growth corridor

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Currently CUP

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments:

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: No change

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: More commercial activity

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

Conditions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

_X__Yes ___No

Comments: Within commercial corridor

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

_X__Yes ___No

Comments: Lake access

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

Comments: Lake access through wooded area- no change

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: No change

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: None needed

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: Will not impede

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

___Yes __X_No

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

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

Conditions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: In growth corridor

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

__X_Yes ___No

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

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

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

___Yes __X_No

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

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: None needed

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: Will not impede

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

___Yes _X__No

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

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: No change

Conditions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Commercial corridor

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Commercial adjoining

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments:

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments:

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: None needed at this time

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: Will not impede

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: Not recently

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

neighborhood?

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

Conditions: Current zoning currently appropriate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Growth corridor

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

_X__Yes ___No

Comments: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to the north

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

Comments: Single cabin

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: No change

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: None needed

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: Will not impede

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Increase in commercial activity recently

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: No change

Conditions:

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

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

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

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

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

_X__Yes ___No

Comments: Growth corridor

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to the south

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments:

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments:

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: None at this time

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments:

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments:

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Growth corridor

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Currently CUP

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

Comments:

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: No change

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: No change

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

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

_X__Yes ___No

Comments: More commercial activity

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

Conditions:

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

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

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

Findings of Fact and Decision:

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Highway 172

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.) No habitation during storage

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

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

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

October 7, 2020

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 2, 2020 – M/S/P McFarlane/Head

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

– None

Board of Adjustment – New Business

– Consideration of Variance #20-09V by Louis Taylor: The East 100’ of the part of the West 400.79’ of Gov Lot 3 lying Northerly of County Road Number 4,

Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.17.24.040. Applicant is requesting a

variance as required by Section 4.1.4 of the Lake of the Woods County

Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Ordinance, to create a non-conforming lot without 2 sites for a standard septic system in the shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Mio asked Mr. Taylor to come forward and explain his request. Mr. Taylor explained that he would like to build a 16’ x 38’ cabin with an incinerator toilet and a greywater holding tank. He said this would meet all required setbacks.

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Taylor. They discussed wetland credits, restrictions on the property, the proposed holding tank, the high-water event in 2014 and appropriate use of the property.

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: Louis Taylor Date: October 7, 2020 Parcel #: 19.17.24.040 Variance Application #: 20-09V

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 ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? _No sites for sewer/septic____________

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

YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? _Proposed building in a wetland________

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

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

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

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

Condition(s):

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

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

APPROVED ( ) DENIED (x ) Motion to Deny: M/S/P Head/Johnson

– Consideration of Variance #20-08V by Peppermint Creek Enterprises: A tract of land in Government lots 3 and 4, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, and Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.24.42.030. Applicant is requesting a variance as required by Section 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to replace an existing structure with a new structure at less than the 100’ setback to the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment.

Mio asked Mr. Johnson to come forward to explain the request. Mr. Johnson explained that they would like to replace an existing trailer house on their lot with a 3 bed, 1 bath cabin that does not meet the setback from the river.

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Johnson. Setbacks, cabin dimensions and parking were discussed.

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: Peppermint Creek Enterprises Date: October 7, 2020 Parcel #: 19.24.42.030 Variance Application #: 20-08V

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _No further encroachment setback on setback from river – in growth corridor, 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 cabin, no change_____________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Lot size and current setback, infrastructure is tight in area________________________________________________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Lot size and current infrastructure______

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Will not___________________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Current infrastructure and upgrade of cabin to HOA specs_________________________________________

Condition(s): __Project must be completed by 12/31/2025_____________________________

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( ) Motion to approve with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Johnson

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt

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.

October 3, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on October 3, 2018

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:

M/S/P Marhula/Levasseur

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 5, 2018

M/S/P Marhula/Head

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

– None

Board of Adjustments – New Business

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-07V by Jason Thomson and Steven Lindgren: Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Walleye Retreat Subdivision in Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred-Sixty-Two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.60.01.060 and 19.60.01.070. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 501.2. of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow applicant to create a Non-Riparian duplex lot which will not meet the required 80,000 square feet within the shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Horntvedt asked Mr. Thompson to come to the table and explain their request.

Mr. Thompson explained that they would like to place a mobile home on their lot as a cabin for their children and grandchildren. It would be used seasonally.

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Thompson. Septic system, lot square footage, width requirements and neighboring lots were discussed.

Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Thompson, hearing none Horntvedt proceeded 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: Jason Thomson, Steven Lindgren Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 19.60.01.070 Variance Application #: 18-07V

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Shoreland 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? __Shoreland Area______________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot Size_______________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Remain Seasonal Use____________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ____Lot size____________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

Condition(s): __Westerly 115’ of Lot 7 to be under common ownership with lot 6

________________________________________________________________________________

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 ( )

October 3, 2018 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt

Acting Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions.

Motions seconded by Head.

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.

– Consideration of Variance Application #18–08V by Steven Cyrus: A tract of land in the NE ¼ of the NW ¼, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.28.21.040. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a structure and a Type 1 septic system closer than the required 100’ setback to Bostic Creek. The Bostic Creek is a Tributary River Segment.

Horntvedt asked Mr. Cyrus to come to the table and explain his request.

Mr. Cyrus explained that he wants to place a trailer house on his property closer than the 100’ setback because of the lot size, shape and location of other structures on the lot and neighboring lots. He believes the septic system will most likely meet the 100’ setback. The closest point of the trailer house would be approximately 66’.

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Cyrus. The current structure, septic system and well were discussed.

Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Cyrus, hearing none Horntvedt proceeded 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: Steven and Deborah Cyrus Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 19.28.21.040 Variance Application #: 18-08V

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Shoreland and 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? ___No

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

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

Size_________________________________________________________________

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

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

Change_____________________________________________________________

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

Size_________________________________________________________________ Condition(s): __Mobile home location as per drawing as of this date

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 ( )

October 3, 2018

___________________________________

Date Ken Horntvedt Acting Chair, Board of

Adjustment

Motion made by Levasseur to approve with conditions.

Motion seconded by Head.

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-09V by 218 Lake Properties LLC: Lots 19 and 20, Wabanica Beaches Subdivision, Section twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West with parcel ID #23.51.00.190. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a structure closer than the required 100’ setback to Wabanica Bay and the required 20’ setback to the Right-of-Way. Wabanica Bay if a Tributary River Segment.

Horntvedt asked Mr. Fitzgerald to come to the table and explain his request.

Mr. Fitzgerald explained that he wants to place a new cabin on the lots as close to the road as possible, in line with the other cabins. Due to lot depth, the new cabin would encroach on the 100’ setback. They are placing a septic system and drilling a new well.

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Fitzgerald. Road right-of-way setbacks were discussed.

Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Fitzgerald, hearing none Horntvedt proceeded 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: 218 Lake Properties, LLC Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 23.51.00.190 Variance Application #: 18-09V

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:

2. 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? ___Shoreland Location, 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? __No Change ______________________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot Size_________________________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot Size_________________________

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

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot Size_________________________ Condition(s): __Location of new structure as per submitted drawing. _______________________

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 ( )

October 3, 2018 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt Acting Chair, Board of

Adjustment

Motion made by Levasseur to approve with conditions.

Motions seconded by Marhula.

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.

With no further business for the Board, Horntvedt entertained a motion to adjourn of the Board of Adjustments. Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head, meeting adjourned. Horntvedt opened the Planning Commission meeting.

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-09CU by Nels Holte: Lot 7, Block 6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One-Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID #19.69.06.070. Applicant is

requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a Commercial Planned Unit Development in a Commercial-Recreation District.

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

Mr. Holte explained that he would like a Conditional Use to operate a small campground consisting of five (5) lots.

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Holte. Lot size, Dept. of Health requirements and covenants and restrictions were discussed.

Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Holte, hearing none Horntvedt proceeded to the Findings of Fact.

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

Name of Applicant: Nels Holte Date: October 3, 2018

Location/Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID# 19.69.06.070

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 seasonal camping/RV park with five full hook-ups.

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Commercial/Recreational District______________

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

Why or why not? _Meet Minnesota Department of Health Code_____________________

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 ( )

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 (x) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? ___Existing Road________________________________________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? __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? ____Mound system in place__________________________________

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? ___Existing Water and Sewer_______________________________

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? ___________________________________________

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 lot already there_____________________________________

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 3000 sq. ft required per lot. Must meet Minnesota Department of Health standards

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 3, 2018 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt

Acting 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 with conditions.

Motion seconded by Levasseur.

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 18-10CU by Gary Grove: A tract of land in the NW ¼ of the NW ¼, Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One-Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West with parcel ID #14.29.22.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a commercial business consisting of short-term vacation rental.

Horntvedt asked Mr. Grove and Mrs. Heppner to come to the table and explain their request.

They explained that they would like to rent out the property on AirBnb and VRBO since their long-term rentals are moving out.

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mrs. Heppner/Mr. Grove. Access to the residence and parking were discussed.

Horntvedt stated that there was a letter regarding this Conditional Use permit and read it into the record.

Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Grove and Mrs. Heppner, hearing none Horntvedt proceeded to the Findings of Fact.

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

Name of Applicant: Gary Grove Date: October 3, 2018

Location/Legal Description: A 2-acre tract located in the NW ¼ NW ¼, Section Twenty-Nine (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID# 14.29.22.010.

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? _Seasonal/ Recreational Area ______________________________

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

Why or why not? __No Change___________________________________________

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 (x) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? __No Change___________________________________________

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 Road_________________________________________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? ___Seasonal/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? _____________________________________________________

11) 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? ___Existing system_____________________________________

14) 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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? __Existing Well and Sewer ________________________________

16) 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? ______________________________________________________

18) 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? ______________________________________________________

19) 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? __Existing trees_________________________________________

20) 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? ____As per application___________________________________

21) 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? __Existing parking______________________________________

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _Conditional use permit expires upon change of ownership from Gary Grove.

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 3, 2018 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt

Acting Chair, Planning Commission

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

Motion made by Head to approve with conditions.

Motion seconded by Marhula.

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 Head/Marhula, meeting adjourned at 8:15 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