Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M.  on October 1, 2025

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tim Nordlof, Tom Mio, Ken Horntvedt, Nancy Dunnell and Dave Marhula. Others present were Land  and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Mio/Nordlof. All in favor.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 3, 2025 – Motion to approve – Marhula/Dunnell. All  in favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

Planning Commission – New Business 

• Consideration of Interim Use Permit #25-08IU by Willliam Jackson and  Stephanie Stavig: Lot 5, Block 3 and Lot 8, Block 2, River Oaks Plat, Section  One (1), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West (Wabanica) – Parcel ID#23.52.03.050 and 23.52.02.080. Applicant is  requesting an Interim Use Permit as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term vacation rental in a  Residential Development Zoning District (R1). 

April Stavig represented the landowners to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board as well as calling Will to include on a conference call. The board discussed the information  in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.  

Name of Applicant: William Jackson & Stephanie Stavig Application Number: 25-08IU Date: October 1, 2025 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 5, Block 3, and Lot 8, Block 2, River Oaks Plat, Section 1, T.  161N, R. 32 W  

Parcel Number: 23.52.03.050 and 23.52.02.080 

Project Proposal: Applicants are requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Sections 1106 of  the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a  Residential Development Zoning District (R1). 

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

 YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Residential and recreation area.

2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This  includes the following items: 

• Safe drinking water or other approved  alternatives 

• Compliant septic system and sized  accordingly 

• Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms • Fire extinguisher(s) 

• Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows 

• Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols 

 YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? As per application. 

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

4. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property?YES (X) NO ( )N/A ( )   Why or why not? Oak Loop Road. 

5. Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately  demonstrated how the increased traffic is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change. 

6. Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Onsite parking. 

7. Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________ 

8. 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? ___________________________________________________________ 

9. What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s  location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? As per application. 

10. Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s  location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? As per application.

11. Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? As per application. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):  The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or  

transfer of the property, whichever occurs first. X 

X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application. X The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application. X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

X A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. 

X No on street parking is allowed. 

X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 

Additional Conditions are as follows: __________________________________________________ 

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

Approved as Presented (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( )  October 1, 2025

_____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt  Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion to approve as presented by Mio, seconded by Marhula. All in favor. 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn,  seconded by Dunnell. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:10 PM.

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 4, 2024- Motion to approve –Marhula/Dunnell. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Interim Use Permit #24-05IU by Brian Erickson: Lot Five (5) Boyd Addition, in Sections One (1) and Six (6), Township One hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) and  Thirty-one (31) West, respectively – Parcel ID# 23.54.00.000. Applicant is requesting an Interim Use  Permit as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a  short-term vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). The Rainy River is an  Agricultural River segment. 

Brian 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: Brian Erickson Date: October 2, 2024 

Location/Legal Description: Lot Five (5), Boyd Addition Parcel Number: 23.54.00.050 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Sections 1106 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential (R1) Zoning  District. 

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

Why or why not? Resort area and property is located in the growth corridor. 

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

Explain? Applicant has met the criteria based upon the submitted application. 

3) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? Residential. 

4) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? Public road, Stanton Drive.

5) Has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the traffic and parking are to be addressed?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Explain? No change. 

6) Has the applicant provided a map adequately depicting locations of property lines, well and septic system  locations, accessory structures, parking areas, and shore recreational facilities? 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Explain? As per submitted application. 

7) Does the water test meet the Minnesota Department of Health drinking water standards? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Explain? The water test results are part of the submitted application. 

8) Has the applicant identified the maximum number of occupants? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? The maximum number of occupants is limited to four (4) individuals. 

9) Is the current SSTS compliant by evidence of a Certificate of Compliance and is the SSTS adequate to  accommodate the identified maximum occupancy? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? The septic system has a valid Certificate of Compliance and is sized for a 2-bedroom  dwelling. 

10) Has the applicant established quiet hours? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? The established quiet hours are from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. 

11) Has the applicant provided a floor plan which includes the number of bedrooms and all other sleeping  accommodations? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? See submitted application. 

12) Has the applicant provided an evacuation plan/fire safety protocol and have identified the locations of  smoke and Carbon Monoxide alarms and fire extinguishers? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? See submitted application. 

13) Has the applicant identified a local person and their contact information? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? See submitted application. 

14) 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 ( ) 

Explain? No signage has been requested. 

15) Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Explain? No need for fencing and/or screening. 

The answers to the questions above, together with the facts supporting the answers and those other facts that  exist in the record, are hereby certified to be the Findings of the County Board of Commissioners. 

The specific reasons for denial or conditions of approval are as follows:

1. The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or transfer of the  property, whichever occurs first. 

2. The maximum occupancy is limited to four (4) individuals. 

3. The established quiet hours are from 10:00 pm to 8:00 am. 

4. A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. 

5. No on-street parking is allowed. 

6. If applicable, the applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 7. Local contact person and emergency numbers must be posted in the dwelling. 

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

October 2, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-04CU by Lyle and Pauline Longtin: That part of  Government Lot Three (3), Section Five (5), Township One hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range  Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID#14.05.31.040. Applicant is requesting a 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. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Lyle 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: Lyle Longtin Date: October 2, 2024 

Location/Legal Description: That part of Government Lot 3, Section 5, Township 163N, Range 34W – Parcel  ID#14.05.31.040. 

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 management. 

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 ( ) 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 protection. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Lake of the Woods. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and  size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent  possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) 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 rock rip rap standards.  

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

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

 October 2, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-05CU by Rocky Point Cabin, LLC: That part of  Government Lot Three (3), Section Five (5), Township One hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range  Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID#14.05.31.030. 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 for the purpose of  repair/replacement of existing rock rip rap. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Name of Applicant: Rocky Point Cabin, LLC %Brett Longtin Date: October 2, 2024 

Location/Legal Description: That part of Government Lot 3, Section 5, Township 163N, Range 34W – Parcel  ID#14.05.31.030. 

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 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 management. 

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

13) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) 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? Shoreline protection. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? 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. Follow DNR rock rip rap standards.  

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

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

 October 2, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-07CU by Wolverton Creek Outfitters, LLC: A  tract in Government Lot 5, Section Thirty-four (34), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168)  North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID#03.34.32.015. 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 constructing a rock rip rap project. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

Name of Applicant: Wolverton Creek Outfitters, LLC Date: October 2, 2024 

Location/Legal Description: That part of Government Lot 5, Section 34, Township 168N, Range 33W – Parcel  ID#03.34.32.015. 

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 management. 

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

15) 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? ____________________________________________________________________  

16) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

17) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

18) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

Why or why not? Shoreline protection. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Lake of the Woods. 

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

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

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

19) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

22) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

23) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

24) 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? ___________________________________________________________________ 

25) 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: 

2. Follow DNR rock rip rap standards. 

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

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

 October 2, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

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

Motion to close the Planning Commission meeting made by Mio, 2^nd by Dohmen. All in favor, passed. Motion to open Board of Adjustments made by Mio, 2^nd by Marhula. All in favor, passed. Board of Adjustments – New Business 

– Consideration of Administrative Appeal #24-01A by Ryan, Tonya, Jeffrey, and Rachel  Albertson: The S½ of Government Lot Three (3) and the N ½ of Government Lot Four (4),  Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID # 28.07.32.010. Applicants are appealing an administrative order requiring the applicant  to adhere to the two-year timeframe to upgrade a septic system. 

Jeff and Rachel Albertson were present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed the information in the application. 

Name of Applicant: Rachel Albertson Date: October 2, 2024 Parcel #: 28.07.32.010 Variance Application #: 24-01A 

Reason for Appeal: Applicants are appealing an administrative order requiring the applicant to adhere to the  two-year timeframe to upgrade a septic system. 

Following discussion on the appeal, Mio made a motion, if the Albertson’s septic system is found to be non compliant it must be upgraded within two (2) years of the date of the failed inspection, with the following  conditions. 

1. There are no rights of appeal to the results of the finalizing inspection 

2. A refund will be granted for the fee of this appeal. 

3. The inspection is to be conducted by the Lake of the Woods County Land and Water Planning Office  with a representative of the Albertsons prior to November 1st, 2024. 

Motion was seconded by Dohmen. All in favor, motion passed with conditions. 

With no further business before the Board of Adjustments, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Dohmen. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM.