Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on September 4, 2024 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 7, 2024- Motion to approve –Mio/Dohmen. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #24-04V by Kyle and Fallon Solie: A tract of land located in the NE¼SE¼ lying  Northerly of Highway 172 and Easterly of Hooper Creek in Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID# 24.18.41.000. Applicant is requesting a  variance from Section 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a  structure at less than the required 100-foot setback from the Hooper Creek. This portion of Hooper Creek is an  Agricultural River segment. 

Kyle 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: Kyle Solie Date: September 4, 2024 Parcel #: 24.18.41.000 Variance Application #: 24-04V 

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

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

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

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Size and shape of lot. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Size and shape of lot. 

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? Shape and size of lot. 

Condition(s): Construction restrictions based on submitted plan on file. 

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 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

 September 4, 2024 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Mio to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dunell. All in favor, motion  passed as presented. 

Motion to close the Board of Adjustment made by Dunnell, 2^nd by Dohmen. All in favor, passed. Motion to open Planning Commission made by Mio, 2^nd by Marhula. All in favor, passed. 1) Planning Commission – Old Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-03CU by Thomas Flaherty: Lot Six (6), Block One (1),  Rivards River Acres, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West  (Gudrid) – Parcel ID# 31.56.01.060. 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 the Rainy River for river access. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment. 

Tom 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: Thomas Flaherty Date: September 4, 2024 Location/Legal Description: Lot Six (6), Block One (1), Rivards River Acres 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone  of the Rainy River for river access. 

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 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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Decrease sedimentation. 

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 to topography. 

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1. Erosion control blanket must be installed. 

2. Fabric under the rock. 

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 ( ) 

 September 4, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-06CU by Timothy & Kristi Bjerk: Lot Eight (8), Block One  (1), Lake Shore Village, Section Six (6), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three  (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.59.01.080. 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 for a rip rap repair project. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

Name of Applicant: Timothy & Kristi Bjerk Date: September 4, 2024 Location/Legal Description: Lot (8), Block One (1), Lakeshore Village Subdivision 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of repair/replacement of existing rock rip rap. 

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

Why or why not? Shoreline repair. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Eliminate shoreline erosion. 

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

14) 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? Lake of the Woods.

11) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Project does not include the jetty. 

2. Must follow DNR requirements for riprap. 

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 ( ) 

 September 4, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission

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

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Dohmen. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:59 PM.

7:00 P.M. on September 6, 2023 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:03 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Nancy Dunnell,  Wes Johnson, Monica Dohmen and Dave Marhula. Absent Member: 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 – Marhula/Mio. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 2, 2023- Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-13CU by Dale Wang, et.al.: A tract in  Government Lot 4, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.17.23.050. 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. Lake  of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Larry Houser was present at the meeting to discuss both requests and answer questions from the Planning  Commission. Houser indicated he is representing the family members that own both parcels and the work  conducted was by the same contractor. Stromlund provided a brief history of the parcels of property dated back  to the 2014 high water event. The Planning Commission discussed the information in the application. The board  then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

Name of Applicant: Dale Wang Date: September 6, 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# 19.17.23.050. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage. 

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 restoration. 

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 (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? Lake of the Woods Shoreline. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not?___________________________________________________________________

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: None 

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

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-14CU by Katherine Houser: A tract in  Government Lot 4, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.17.23.030. 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. Lake  of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Name of Applicant: Katherine Houser Date: September 6, 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# 19.17.23.030. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage. 

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 restoration. 

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 (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? Lake of the Woods Shoreline. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: None 

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

Approved as Presented (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) Motion to Adjourn at 7:16 PM- Mio/Johnson. All in favor. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on September 7, 2022 

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

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

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 3, 2022- Motion to approve- Dave /Ken. All in favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Monica noted a conflict for Casey and Colleen Hill. 

Board of Adjustments: New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #22-07V by Bayview Lodge of Baudette, LLC: Lot 31, Wabanica  Beaches Subdivision in Section Twelve (12), Township One-hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range  Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 23.51.00.310. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section  503.6 of the Lake of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow a structure that will not meet the  required fifty (50) foot setback from the right-of-way from State Highway 172. Wabanica Creek is a  Tributary River segment. 

Randee explained that they were replacing an existing cabin with a newer one to be located approximately 1 foot further from Hwy  172 than the previous cabin. Tom noted that a letter was received from MNDOT noting no concern for the cabin(s) as long as it  remained outside of their right of way. No concerns were noted from the audience. Marhula recommended that they go to the Findings  of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Bayview Lodge of Baudette, LLC Date: September 7, 2022 Parcel #: 23.51.00.310 Variance Application #: 22-07V 

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? Commercial cabin replacement. 

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? Cabin rental. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Placement of prior cabins. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Right of way. 

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? Right of way considerations.

Condition(s): This ruling shall apply to replacement of any cabins legally described that do not meet setback requirements of  State Highway 172. 

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

Motion by Marhula to approve, with conditions, the request for a variance. 

The motion was 2^nd by Horntvedt, all in favor. Motion passes. 

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 ( ) 

September 7, 2022 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

– Consideration of Variance #22-08V by Casey and Colleen Hill: A 4.27-acre tract in Government  Lot 2 Section Eight (8), Township One-hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West – Parcel  ID# 31.08.12.030. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.7 of the Lake of the Woods  Zoning Ordinance, to allow a structure that will not meet the required fifty (50) foot setback from the  right-of-way from State Highway 11. 

Reed McFarlane spoke for the Hill family explaining that they needed room for horses when they purchased the  land and placed a building in the NW corner to best block prevailing winds. Nelson noted that the building is  moveable although obviously not easily due to the shape and open side of the building. Mio noted that MNDOT  is ok with the building as long as it does not encroach on the right of way. Marhula recommended they move to  the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Casey and Colleen Hill Date: September 7, 2022 Parcel #: 31.08.12.030 Variance Application #: 22-08V 

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? Livestock protection. 

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? Livestock protection/horses. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condition(s): No further structures within Right-of-Way setback will be allowed. 

Motion by Marhula to approve, with conditions, the request for a variance. 

The motion was 2^nd by Horntvedt, all in favor. Dohmen abstained. Motion passes. Building permit is still required by the Hill  family. 

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 ( ) 

September 7, 2022 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion by Nelson to close the Board of Adjustment and open the Planning Commission. Horntvedt 2^nd. All in favor. Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-05ZC by Long Point Association: A tract of land located in  Government Lot Five (5), Section Thirty-six (36), Township One-hundred Sixty-four (164) North,  Range Thirty-four (34) West. Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by Section 1206. The amendment would change  the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a Rural Residential (R2)  Zoning District for the purposes of continued development of the property. 

Earl and Mary Jean Anderson explained that the original members never thought the back lots would ever get  developed which isn’t how things worked out and there are now 23 garages on back lots. Therefore, the  association would like to change the zoning to match the current activity on the property. The association does  not allow any living quarters on any of the backlots according to the current bylaws. The new line would align  with the road to the South of the backlots. The remaining land is to remain within the current Special Protection  zoning. 

Horntvedt recommended they go to the findings of fact.

Name of Applicant: Long Point Association, Inc. Date: September 7, 2022 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land within Government Lot Five (5), Section Thirty-six (36),  Township One hundred Sixty-four (164) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West 

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection Proposed: Rural Residential (R2) Parcel Number(s): 13.36.41.000 through 13.36.41.251 Application Number: 22-05ZC 

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: Recreational recreation area. 

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

Comments: Residential. 

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. 

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: Expansion into a Special Protection Zone over many years. 

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood? ___Yes X No 

Comments: No change. 

Conditions:  

Motion to approve by Horntvedt, 2^nd by Marhula, all in favor. Motion passes. 

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. 

 September 7, 2022 ____________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning Commission 

– 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). 

Conditional Use Request 22-11CU was tabled due to no representative being at the meeting and opposition to the request.  Walter Kolodziej expressed concern about ruts on the road currently due to road design. Their concern is what heavy  equipment will do to the road. Walter also expressed concern about noise, dust and additional traffic. Next meeting date is  October 5, 2022. Motion to table came from Marhula, 2^nd by Nelson. 

– 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 explained the need for short term rental business in the area. Mio pointed out that there are no egress  windows in any of the rental bedrooms. Mio also noted a need to travel through a utility room to be able to exit  the building in an emergency as a concern to expect a client to understand that. The current layout of the  building is deemed too dangerous to allow short term rental business without changes. Mio suggested the  request be tabled until egress issues can be addressed as well as proper travel through the building in the event  of an emergency.  

Two letters regarding the short-term rental were read into the minutes from Shawn Rojeski and Tom & Pam  Ford. Steve and Beverly Barcell expressed concerns about the driveway location with their desire to place a  fence between their property and the Fish property. The driveway issue is a property owner issue to be resolved  between the property owners. Stromlund explained the process of withdrawing their request or waiving the  decision-making deadline until there is time to make requested adjustments to the property. Nelson moved to  table the application, 2^nd by Dunnell. All in favor. Stromlund will follow up with a letter request to withdraw the  decision-making deadline. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-13CU by Janelle and Shawn Reed: Lots 4 and 5,  Block 1 of Himberg Estates in Section Ten (10), Township One-hundred Sixty (160) North, Range  Thirty (30) West –Parcel ID#31.54.01.040. 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.  

Janelle Reed explained her desire to leave a camper on their land so that it’s more convenient to visit without  needing to haul their camper each time. Their long-term desire is to build a cabin on the land. There is no well  on the land. Reed’s carry their black water home with them at present. Nelson motioned that they move to the  findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Shawn and Janelle Reed Date: September 7, 2022 Location/Legal Description: Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Himberg Estates in Section 10, T. 160N, R. 30W 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to allow placement of a recreational vehicle within the shoreland area  of the 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? Allows recreational activity. 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Access to Highway 11. 

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? On shoreland property/recreational. 

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? Portable holding tank. 

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? Well screened. 

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

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

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1. Seven (7) year sunset on Conditional Use Permit (1/1/2030). 

Nelson motioned to approve with conditions, 2^nd by Dohmen. All in favor. 

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 ( ) 

 September 7, 2022 _____________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

– Consideration of Lake of the Woods County Floodplain Ordinance 

o Floodplain Ordinance 

Josh explained the need for a floodplain ordinance in order to allow for floodplain insurance after October 2022. A generic version  was handed out with the intent to adjust to fit local county needs. 2.118: Critical facilities are recommended for removal from the  ordinance. All in favor. 2.130: light duty trucks was ok’d for removal. 2.139: Repetitive loss recommended for language change to be  more clear on damage value definitions for market value versus estimated market value. Market value depends on what business  you’re in. Recommendation is to work with the Assessor’s office to define “value”. OK to leave language as is for now.  Section 3.0 Jurisdiction and Districts is slated to begin using Beacon to determine location replacing old paper maps. 4.33 to be  removed as we do not have any such facilities. 5.15 to remove wording about CUP as it’s already required in the Zoning Ordinance.  5.16 recommended to remain in ordinance. 5.25 to be removed. 5.26 to remain. 5.31 to remain. 5.32 to remain. 5.41 & 5.42 to remain. Adjustments to language in 6.22.B.3. 6.24: Fill language to remain. 6.25 to be removed.6.26 to be questioned further by Josh. 6.32 to  remain. 6.42 to remain. 7.42.B to remain. 11.25 & 11.26 to remain. 11.32 and 11.33 to remain. 12.23 to remain. 

Next step is to present adjusted floodplain ordinance to the board of commissioners for approval as early as September 13, 2022. The  ordinance needs to be adopted prior to October 27. Motion by Dohmen to approve as noted, 2^nd by Dunnell. All in favor. 

Motion to Adjourn at 9:42 PM- Horntvedt/Dunnell. All in favor. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on September 1st, 2021 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio,  Marshall Nelson, Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Wes Johnson, and Monica Dohmen. The  following members were absent: 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 Marshall/ Dave. All in favor.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 7, 2021- Motion to approve Ken/Dave. All in favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Tom Mio received notification of Hapka Holdings, LLC CUP  request.  

Planning Commission: New Business 

Consideration of Zone Change #21-01ZCV by Crown Holdings, LLC: The SW¼NW¼,  Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32)  West – Parcel ID# 19.36.23.000. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Rural Residential  (R2) Zoning District to a Residential (R1) Zoning District for the purposes of a subdivision and  development of lots. 

Scott Heteen is the property owner who is requesting this change. Scott is working with Widseth  to develop the property and put in a road for a new subdivision. Minor subdivision is the  preliminary plan with 1.66 acre lots with a total of 18 lots. The proposed plan with be developed  over time, with 8 lots being developed every 5 years. For wetland impacts Josh Stromlund and  applicant have spoken regarding the locations. The plan is to allow those who purchase lots with  wetlands to have more acreage than those without. The line between where those wetlands are is  pretty obvious to both the applicant and the board. The wetland boundary will be decided by a  chosen elevation to make the delineation simpler. The board then asked Josh Stromlund if a 1.66  acre lot is large enough to accommodate a dwelling and two proposed sites for septic. Mr.  Stromlund indicated that size should be adequate to accommodate a typical 2500/3000 square  foot structure and two septic sites. The board asked the applicant how soon he hopes to  accomplish this project. He indicated that this is the first step and once the zone change is  approved, if it is, then he hopes to have a plat completed by Widseth as soon as possible. He  would like to clear an area and then get a road placed on the property this year if possible. More  discussions will come on the layout of the lots, road right of way widths, and who the developer  wants to take care of the road (county, landowners…etc.).  

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: Change from R2 to R1 for platting. 

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

X Yes ___No 

Comments: Adjacent is R2. 

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

__ Yes X No 

Comments: Still R2. 

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? 

X Yes ___No 

Comments: County Road to the north, State Hwy to West and new road to be built according to plat. 

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

X Yes ___No 

Comments: Easement will be addressed in plat. 

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: Increased residential and long-term vacation rental. 

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

neighborhood? 

___Yes X No 

Comments:

Conditions: None 

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- Dave/Marshall. All in favor.  

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-11CU by Paul Haugo: Lots 9 and 10, Block 1,  Wildwood North Subdivision, Section Nine (9), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID#: 18.50.01.090 and 18.50.01.100. Applicant is  requesting an After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) yards of material within the  shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) yards outside of the shore impact zone of Zippel Bay  of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a general development lake. 

Paul Haugo is the property owner who is requesting this CUP. He described the muskrat  issues and erosion that the property owners have been having within the Zipple Bay area.  This is when he decided to use granite and rocks to rip rap the shoreline of both lots. He  described the process they used. First placing landscaping fabric down and then roughly 6” of rock approximately 8-10’ in width. The shoreline was not changed or adjusted at  all; they just followed the existing shoreline. This was done to both stabilize the shoreline  from additional erosion issues and to keep the creatures away from it. The board then  asked why this was after the fact, Paul indicated that he didn’t know a permit was  required for this activity and will ensure proper permits are obtained prior to completing  any additional work. DNR has been involved with this project and has indicated to Paul  that if the project gets scaled back to only 200’ of shoreland impact a permit will not be  required. Paul indicated that he plans to remove some of the rip rap in order to stay under  that limit so a permit will not be required through the DNR. This project was completed  in 2017/2018. The Board then reviews the notice received from the DNR, Brent Mason.  Aerial imagery comparisons show that the project was not present in 2018 aerials but the  specific date of when those images were taken is not known. The letter from Brent Mason  (DNR Area Hydrologist- Bemidji based) indicates that he is still waiting to hear from  Paul regarding the after the fact public works permit regarding the shoreline impact. Paul  indicating that this is one reason why he wants to scale the project back, so that a DNR  permit will not be required. Regarding the impervious surface coverage, DNR is waiting  on a value for how much of the property is now considered impervious surface, which  includes the crushed granite material. Comparisons between the aerial imagery also  highlight the vegetation and tree removal that took place on the property. The trees that  were removed were just tall weeds, all viable trees were kept and more pines and grass  see has been planted. Letters from the public were acknowledged in support of the CUP  and the letter from the Brent Mason (DNR) was acknowledged.  

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? 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 ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Removed trees, removed shoreland vegetation, and changed slope to shore. 

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

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

YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? To be based on DNR findings. 

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Shoreline protection. 

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 (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Removed vegetative screening. 

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? 

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1) Must meet requirements of DNR letter dated 8/31/21 from Brent Mason. 

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/Wes. All in favor.  

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-12CU by Hapka Holdings, LLC: Government  Lot One (1) less deeded the north six hundred sixty feet (660’) of Government Lot Two (2) less  the south four hundred fifty feet (450’) of Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-one  

(161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 24.07.22.000. Applicant is requesting a  Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of  Rainy River. Rainy River is an agricultural river segment. 

Glen Borgen is the representative speaking for Hapka Holdings in the request of this  conditional use permit. The applicant is desiring to pour concrete roughly 20’ in length to  make a private/personal boat landing on the north end of the property. This will comply  with all DNR standards regarding installation and use of private boat ramps. The  dimensions will be 12’ in width and 6” thick concrete pads. The board asked what the  plans were to prevent future erosion and Glen mentioned that this location looks like it  had already been used as a ramp so not too much removal or work would need to be  done. The large rocks right in the way of the approach would need to be moved out of the  way. This part of the Rainy River is relatively shallow so the ramp would need to extend  fairly far into the water in order to allow proper access. The DNR has been made aware  of the project and the applicant will comply with any conditions they present. The side  slopes have been cut out so the dirt work that would need to be completed is relatively  minimal. The board then asked about additional development and whether or not the land  owner plans to sell or split these lots further. There is some preliminary discussion but no  set plans have been made. The board then asks how much material would be moved?  Glen says that not much would need to be moved as the slope is already very gradual.  Some type of a dock needs to be placed there. What about the two boats landings that are  within a mile of the property? The landowner wants to have a private access for himself  to use. Michelle (a neighbor to the property) was there to comment on the project, she 

was given misinformation on the project (thought the boat ramp would be placed in the  drainage ditch). Since that is not the case she has no issues with the project.  

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? River access/recreational. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? To follow DNR specs. 

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? Will not or little change. 

11) 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? Shoreland river access. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? To follow DNR specs. 

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

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

11) 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? ______________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change.

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

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

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 ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Private launch. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) Follow DNR requirements for private launch. 

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. Ken/Dave. All in favor.  

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-13CU by Nels Holte: Government Lot Three  (3), Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two North (162), Range Thirty-two  West (32) with Parcel ID# 19.17.24.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as  required by Section 902 of 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 for the purpose  of a rip rap project. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

The applicant wants to restructure the shoreland existing rocks and then backfill behind  it. All work is to be completed within 6’ of the shoreland area. The total shore impact  area would be roughly 500’. The plan is to move as much material out of the area that  they legally can, place fabric down, and then place the rocks back so the project is done  correctly. Does this require a DNR permit? Yes, if the work is done below the OHWL.  Going over 200’ will trigger a DNR permit if they go below the steaked off areas that the  DNR placed there. Letters from Brent Mason (DNR Area Hydrologist) were presented. 

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

Why or why not? Shoreline stabilization. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? DNR requirements. 

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Shoreland stabilization. 

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

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

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? 

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) Follow DNR guidelines for riprap. 

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/ Marshall. All in favor.  

Motion to close Planning Commission- Ken/Marshall. All in favor.  

Motion to open Board of Adjustment- Marshall/ Dave. All in favor.  

Board of Adjustment: New Business 

Consideration of Variance #21-07V by Harold and Kari Gustafson: A tract of land lying  within Government Lot Three (3), Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.25.31.119. Applicant is requesting a  variance from Section 501.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to split a non conforming lot in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2). 

Wants to split and sell a recently acquired property from the county. The road splits the property  in two already, so they plant to just follow that boundary. The applicant (Dave, I presume no  introductions were made), mentioned that a surveyor has been contacted and will hopefully be  out soon to assess and create new legal descriptions for the property split. MNDOT owns the  neighboring property and sent in a letter for comment- they have no issue with the sale of this  property. No further questions from the board- so they move on to findings of fact:  

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? Provides property to two adjacent landowners. 

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? Increased lot size. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Divided by a road. 

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

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? Reasonable use of entire property. 

Condition(s): None 

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

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

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

Consideration of Variance #21-08V by Jonathan McHaney: A tract in Government Lot Two  (2), Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two  (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.36.14.080. Applicant is requesting a variance from Sections 503.5 and  603 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to build a structure less than the  required one hundred-foot (100’) setback of the Rainy River and construct a deck that will  exceed the allowable 15% of the structure setback. Rainy River is an agricultural river segment. 

Applicant would like to tear down the current cabin down to the foundation, then construct a new  cabin with an addition in the same location utilizing the same foundation. This would all be done  in the same location and not impede any closer to the river. The board asks the applicant about  his large backyard and why he wouldn’t be able to utilize more of the yard rather than keeping it  in the same place. He indicated that he has had several contractors on site and the foundation is  in good shape so he just wants to add on to it for the new structure. Josh gave a brief explanation  to the board regarding when a permit is not required (re-siding, new doors/windows or re-roofing  a structure), he also mentioned that in the cases of natural disasters destroying a structure then  the applicant can apply within 180 days of that disaster and get granted a new permit. He also  discussed the history of the setbacks, in the past the Rainy River used to have a 75’ setback  similar to Lake of the Woods. When the Rainy River ordinance came into affect in the early  1990’s that is when that value was changed to 100’ OHWL setback. This is when the  classification of the Rainy River changed to either a historic or a scenic waterway. With no  further public discussion or letters received the board moves onto the findings of fact: 

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 on river setback. 

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

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

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Existing foundation and past setback  requirements. 

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Current foundation site and past setback  requirements. 

Condition(s): 

1) House must not encroach any closer to river. 

2) Deck on front of house cannot exceed more than 15% of setback (max of 10 ft in width). 3) Must complete by 12/31/23. 

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/Marshall. All in favor. 

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. 

Mr. Peppel requests that this variance be tabled as he is in discussion with neighboring  landowners. This request will be tabled until the following meeting, pending further discussions  with the landowner.  

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

Motion to Adjourn at 8:45 PM- Dave/Wes. All in favor. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on September 2, 2020 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 5, 2020 – M/S/P McFarlane/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #20-06V by Dale Cook and Jeanette Rubelle  Towne: The West 250’ of Government Lot 3 North of Highway 11, Section  

Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West,  Parcel – 31.11.42.020. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 501.2.3 of  the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to split an existing non conforming lot of record which will not meet the minimum lot size requirement of  five (5) acres in the shoreland area of Rainy River. The Rainy River is an  

Agricultural river segment. 

Mio asked Mrs. Cook to come forward to explain the request. Mrs. Cook explained that they  would like to acquire the additional land for a mound septic inspection, as well as privacy. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mrs. Cook. Dimensions and trees 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: Dale and Louise Cook and Jeanette Rubelle Towne Date: September 2, 2020 Parcel #: 31.11.42.020 Variance Application #: 20-06V 

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Not going to change property use. Makes  room for further possible septic issues_____________________________ 

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? __Septic sites______________ 

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

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

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

Condition(s): _Maximum of 35’ and meet property setbacks. Must be surveyed.____ 

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/McFarlane 

– Consideration of Variance #20-07V by Derek and Brittny Johnson: Lots 21  and 22, Wabanica Beaches, Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel – 23.51.00.210. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Sections 503.6 and 508 of the Lake of the Woods  Zoning Ordinance to construct a structure less than the required one hundred  (100) foot setback and allow a guest house on a lot that does not meet duplex lot  size requirements within the shoreland area of Wabanica River. The Wabanica  River is a Tributary river segment. 

Mio asked Mr. Johnson to come forward and explain his request. Mr. Johnson explained that he  would like to build a new garage in line with the house and farther from the right-of-way. This  would place it about 80’ from the water.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Johnson. They discussed additional setbacks,  septic and living space in the garage.

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: Derek Johnson & James Etterman Date: September 2, 2020 Parcel #: 23.51.00.210 Variance Application #: 20-07V 

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? _Waterfront residential___________ 

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

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Setbacks from water, road and well 

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

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Will not/remains residential___ 

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

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

Condition(s): _Septic updates within two years, septic tank(s) must be at least 50’ from OHW.  Completed by 12/31/2022________________________________________ 

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

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

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

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of Adjustment meeting and open the Planning Commission meeting. M/S/P Marhula/Head

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Zone Change #20-01ZC by S & J Real Estate, LLC: Lot 1,  Block 1, Lukes Estates in Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred  

Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.58.01.010.  Applicant is requesting a Zone Change from Section 303 of the Lake of the  

Woods County Zoning Ordinance to change the current zoning from Residential  District (R-1) to a Commercial-Recreation District. 

Mio asked Gary Moeller to come forward and explain the request. He explained that they would  like to place a three-bedroom cabin on this lot to be rented out on a short-term basis. Josh  Stromlund gave a brief description on the historic zoning of this lot. 

Mr. Mio read a letter from the public in to the record. 

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

Lake of the Woods County  

Rezoning 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: S & J Real Estate, LLC Date: September 2, 2020 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Lukes Estates of Section 24, Township 162N, Range 32W  (Wheeler Township) 

Current Zoning Classification: Residential Development (R1) Proposed: Commercial-Recreation Parcel Number(s): 19.58.01.010 Application Number: 20-01ZC 

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? 

_x__ Yes ___No 

Comments: Resort area, previously commercial, also within the growth corridor 

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

_x__Yes ___No 

Comments: No change from past years, previously residential 

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: None/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/none 

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? 

___ Yes _x__No 

Comments: Same use 

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

neighborhood? 

___Yes _x__ No 

Comments: Should improve values – replaced old trailer house with new rental cabin 

Conditions: None 

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. 

_____________________________________ September 2, 2020 Tom Mio Date 

Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  Motion to approve as presented: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-06CU by Richard Schram: A  tract in Government Lot 2, Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#19.65.00.080. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the applicant to move more than ten  (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods  for the purpose of repairing shoreline damage. Lake of the Woods is a General  Development Lake. 

Mr. Schram was not present, so Josh Stromlund explained the request. Mr. Schram would  like to complete the shoreline protection project started in 2014 from the extreme ordinary  high-water event. 

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

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

Name of Applicant: Richard and Lynn Schram_____ Date: September 2, 2020__ 

Location/Legal Description: A tract in Gov. Lot 2, Section 7, Township 162 North, Range 32  West – Parcel ID #19.65.00.080 

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __Shoreline 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? __Will not_____________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _None______________________________ 

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

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

September 2, 2020  

____________________________________ 

 Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  Motion to approve as presented: Horntvedt/Marhula 

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:48 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 10, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion seconded by Nelson. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

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

Motion made by Horntvedt to close Board of Adjustment. 

Motion seconded by Marhula. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

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

Mio asked Mr. Wold to come to the table. 

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

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

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

Discussion then ensued between the board and Mr. Wold. 

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

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

Mio asked the Board for their recommendation. 

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

Mio then proceeded to the next request. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? To meet state regulations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _____________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

Motion seconded by Nelson. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

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

Adjournment: M/S/P McFarlane/Head 

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

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 7, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment – Old Business 

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

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

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

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

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

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Moving further back from OHW and  encroaching no further on Road RW________ 

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

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

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Existing building location and water  frontage 

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

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

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

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

September 4, 2019 ______________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

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

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

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

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

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

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

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Seasonal recreation area______________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( )  September 4, 2019 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Horntvedt to approve with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Marhula. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passed.  

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

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on September 5, 2018 

Chairman Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott  Head, Reed McFarlane, Gerald Levasseur and Dave Marhula. Members absent: Ken Horntvedt,  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 Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 1, 2018 

M/S/P McFarlane/Levasseur 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustments 

New Business 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-06V by Leah Spee: Part of Lot 2 and all of  Lot 3, Block 2 of Woodland Estates in Section Thirteen (13), Township One-hundred  Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler), Lake of the Woods  County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 23.57.02.020. Applicant is requesting a variance from  Section 503.6 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the  construction of a dwelling that will not meet the required setback from the Ordinary High  Water Level of Wabanica Bay. Wabanica Bay is a Tributary River Segment. 

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

Ms. Spee explained that based on where her shed is located and the desired location of a future  septic system, there is not enough room on the east side of the lot between the shed and the house  to pull in and park a boat. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Ms. Spee. Garage and house placement, lot size and  neighboring lots were discussed.  

Mio stated that there was a letter regarding this variance and read it into the record. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Ms. Spee, hearing none Mio 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: Leah Spee Date: September 5, 2018 Parcel #: 23.57.02.020 Variance Application #: 18-06V 

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Residential Area_______________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Diagonal lot lines, well and septic plans____ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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____________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

Condition(s): _House setback must be greater or equal to 100’ at NW corner and greater than or equal to 89’ at SW  corner, completed by 7/1/2020__________________________________________________________ 

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

_______9/5/18___________ ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by McFarlane. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

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

Adjournment: 

M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane, meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.