April 2, 2025

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

7:00 P.M. on April 2, 2025 

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 5, 2025 – Motion to approve – Marhula/Marshall. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Mio and Horntvedt noted being closer neighbors. Otherwise none. Board of Adjustments – Old Business 

– Consideration of Variance Application #25-01V by Newell Glines, Kathleen Glines, Michael  Lange, and Stephanie Anderson: Lot 3, Block 1, Wabanica Bay Plat in Section Twelve (12),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wabanica) – Parcel ID#  23.50.01.030. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance to allow the replacement of an existing garage, addition to said garage and house that  will not meet the required ten (10) foot lot line setback. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River  Segment. 

As there was nobody present to represent the Glines family for a second meeting in a row, the Board determined  to go through the application as best as possible. 

Name of Applicant: Newell & Kathleen Glines, Michael &  Stephanie Anderson 

Date: April 2, 2025 

Parcel #: 23.50.01.030 Variance Application #: 25-01V 

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

1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods County  Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( X ) and Why or why not?  Additional encroachment to 10’ lot line. Not enough information available. 

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 the same. 

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

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

Plenty of room to alter the plan. 

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

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

Landowner created. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not?  

Remain residential. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not?  

Current garage location and room to expand without the variance. 

Comment: Two opportunities to present to the board and no one was present to explain the reason for the variance. 

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 ( ) DENIED (X ) 

 April 2, 2025 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Vice Chair, Planning Commission 

Motion to deny by Mio/Marshall. All in favor. 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance Application #25-03V by Jason Goulet, Lisa Goulet, Crystal Goulet and  Jack Goulet: A tract of land in Section Thirty (30), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North,  Range Thirty-four (34) West (Angle) – Parcel ID# 02.30.41.031. Applicant is requesting a Variance as  required by Section 605.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the split of two  contiguous nonconforming lots of record. 

Jack Goulet was in attendance 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: Jason Goulet, Lisa Goulet, Michael Goulet,  Crystal Goulet, and Jack Goulet 

Date: April 2, 2025 

Parcel #: 02.30.41.031 Variance Application #: 25-03V 

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

1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods County  Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not?  Residential development.

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 development. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not?  

Original plat. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not?  

Original plat. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not?  

No change. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not?  

Original plat. 

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 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED (X) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS ( ) DENIED ( )  April 2, 2025 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to approve by Dunnell/Marhula. All in favor. 

Motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting: Motion by Marshall/Marhula. All in favor Motion to open the Planning Commission meeting: Motion by Mio/Marshall. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Interim Use Permit #25-02IU by 623, LLC (Steven and Amy Olson): West half  (½) of the Northeast quarter (¼), of Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North,  Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.07.12.000. Applicants are 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 Rural Residential Development Zoning District (R2).  

Amy Olson was called at her home 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: 623 LLC Date: April 2, 2025

Location/Legal Description: The West Half (1/2) of the North-East Quarter (1/4) of Section Seven (7),  Township One-hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) 

Parcel Number: 16.07.12.000 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Section 401.1 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential Zoning  District (R2). 

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

Why or why not? Vacation rental. 

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 • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • 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? Per application. 

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

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

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 ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  

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

Why or why not? On site. 

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? No change.

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? See application. 

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

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 as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( )  April 2, 2025 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

– Consideration of Preliminary Plat of Youngs Bay Mancaves by YBMC, LLC: The East 165.00 feet  of the West 198.00 feet of Government Lot 3, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West (Angle), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota, except  the South 290.00 feet thereof, Parcel ID# 02.25.24.020. Applicant is requesting to create a planned unit  development consisting of twelve (12) storage units. 

Lake of the Woods County Land and Water Planning Office, Lake of the Woods County Surveyor, and  Lake of the Woods County Recorder Comments regarding the  

Preliminary Plat of Youngs Bay Mancaves

Gregg was called to discuss the project and a list of items to consider was drawn up as follows. County Surveyor Comments 

1. Identify the size and type of found monuments. 

2. Purpose of Outlot A? Added to declaration? 

3. Is this a 505 plat or a 515? 

4. Dedication is for 505 plat not 515. 

5. Remove State of Minnesota at end of Tyler’s name. 

6. Should compute closure. 

Recorder Comments 

1. Ultima Bank has a mortgage on both properties. They will need to be added and sign the plats as an  interest-holder. 

2. In Tyler’s signature block, “State of Minnesota” got added behind his license number. I believe that is  actually part of the jurat for the acknowledgment of his signature. Just a simple spacing issue. 

3. I would like to see the sheets numbered 1 of 2, 2 of 2 for each plat. 

4. Our ordinance states your signature block should identify you as “Zoning Administrator,” not L&W  Planning Director. 

Land and Water Planning Office Comments 

1. In the first paragraph of the Declaration document, it is stated “a planned condominium commercial  community.” Should this be simply stated a planned community to reflect the title on the plat drawing  and not be confused between a condominium CIC or a planned community CIC. Additionally, the  suggested change would be consistent with the reference identified in number 3 below and email  correspondence indicating a planned community. 

2. In the Declaration document, the definition of Plat references Section 515B.2-110(d), which references a  planned community. This reference applies to a Common Interest Community Plat (CIC Plat); CIC  Created Before August 1, 2010. It more than likely is a typo and should be 515B.2-1101(d). 

3. In the Declaration document, the definition of “Unit” should be removed or modified as these are not  Commercial Units. Due to the proposed ownership structure, it would be of a residential nature. Any  identified “commercial use” indicated in the Declaration should be removed. 

4. In accordance with the Land Use Tables in the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance and due to  the residential nature of the units, a Conditional Use Permit will have to be applied for and approved for  a residential planned unit development. 

5. The requirements of 515B.2-1101 will have to be adhered to.

6. In the Declaration documents, Section 15, first paragraph references Section 515B.1-103(31). This  appears to be a typo and should be referencing 515B.1-103(33b)? 

A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat with conditions by Marshall/Marhula. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Preliminary Plat Baudette Mancaves by GWE, LLC: The  East½East½NW¼NE¼, Section Twenty-seven (27), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.27.12.010. Applicant is requesting to create a planned unit  development consisting of twelve (12) storage units. 

As Gregg was still on the phone, the meeting then shifted to the Preliminary Plat for Baudette Mancaves. 

Lake of the Woods County Land and Water Planning Office, Lake of the Woods County Surveyor, and  Lake of the Woods County Recorder Comments regarding the  

Preliminary Plat of Baudette Mancaves 

County Surveyor Comments 

1. Are they going to certify the West ¼, South ¼, East ¼ and SE Corner? 

2. Why is the East ¼ not a split? 

3. Is Lot 13 CE (common element)? 

. If this is a 505 plat no access to lots? 

Dedication 

1. No public ways have been created? 

2. The heading says CIC plat but dedication says 505 plat? 

. If CIC plat dedication is different. 

3. Space after Tyler’s license number 60122 or remove State of Minnesota at end. 

4. Identify the size and type of found monuments. 

5. Can’t dedicate R/W or easements in CIC plat. 

6. Should compute closure. 

Recorder Comments 

1. Ultima Bank has a mortgage on both properties. They will need to be added and sign the plats as an  interest-holder. 

2. In Tyler’s signature block, “State of Minnesota” got added behind his license number. I believe that is  actually part of the jurat for the acknowledgment of his signature. Just a simple spacing issue. 

3. I would like to see the sheets numbered 1 of 2, 2 of 2 for each plat. 

4. Is the zoning indication correct for CIC # 5 Baudette Mancaves?

5. Our ordinance states your signature block should identify you as “Zoning Administrator,” not L&W  Planning Director. 

Land and Water Planning Office Comments 

1. In the first paragraph of the Declaration document, it is stated “a planned condominium commercial  community.” Should this be simply stated a planned community to reflect the title on the plat drawing  and not be confused between a condominium CIC or a planned community CIC. Additionally, the  suggested change would be consistent with the reference identified in number 3 below and email  correspondence indicating a planned community. 

2. In the Declaration document, the definition of Plat references Section 515B.2-110(d), which references a  planned community. This reference applies to a Common Interest Community Plat (CIC Plat); CIC  Created Before August 1, 2010. It’s more than likely a typo and should be 515B.2-1101(d). 

3. In the Declaration document, the definition of “Unit” should be removed or modified as these are not  Commercial Units. Due to the proposed ownership structure, it would be of a residential nature. Any  identified “commercial use” indicated in the Declaration should be removed. 

4. In accordance with the Land Use Tables in the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance and due to  the residential nature of the units, a Conditional Use Permit will have to be applied for and approved for  a residential planned unit development. 

5. The requirements of 515B.2-1101 will have to be adhered to. 

6. In the Declaration documents, Section 15, first paragraph references Section 515B.1-103(31). This  appears to be a typo and should be referencing 515B.1-103(33b)? 

7. On the plat drawing, please identify what the unit boundaries are versus the existing building footprint.  This pertains to the unidentified 2 feet. 

8. On the plat drawing, all of the dimensions are to the hundredth (2 places after decimal point) with the  exception of 2 feet indicated in the detail drawing which does not include a measurement to the  hundredth. To be consistent, it should be labeled as 2.00. 

A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat with conditions by Mio/Marhula. All in favor. 

– SSTS Ordinance Amendment 

The Board considered an amendment to the SSTS Ordinance regarding property north of the 49th parallel for  septic compliance inspections. The discussion was based on a suggestion from the Minnesota Pollution  Control Agency to require landowners seeking a septic inspection to first need to go in front of the Board of  Adjustment to seek permission on a case-by-case basis to be able to perform an inspection without emptying the septic tank. Land and Water Planning would like to provide an administrative process and not involve the  Board of Adjustment for every situation. The criteria the Land and Water Planning Office would use are  whether there is a road supporting a pump truck to the property in question as well as the property location.  Photos will be required to document the inspection was done properly and provide evidence for the office to  place in the property file. The Board was ok with the concept. 

Motion to accept administrative approval when warranted made by Mio/Marhula. All in favor. 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Marshall made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Mio. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:26 PM. 

February 5, 2025

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

7:00 P.M. on February 5, 2025 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to move Kasella ahead of Lundbohm – Mio/Marhula. All in favor. Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 8, 2025 – Motion to approve – Dunnell/Mio. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Board of Adjustments – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance Application #25-01V by Newell Glines, Kathleen Glines,  Michael Lange, and Stephanie Anderson: Lot 3, Block 1, Wabanica Bay Plat in Section  Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wabanica) – Parcel ID# 23.50.01.030. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.5 of  the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the replacement of an existing garage,  addition to said garage and house that will not meet the required ten (10) foot lot line setback.  The Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment. 

There was no one representing this request present at the meeting. 

Motion made by Dunnell to table the request until a future meeting, seconded by Mio. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Variance Application #25-02V by James Dahl: Lot 4, Block 1, Harris  Addition in Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range  Thirty-one (31) West (East of Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.63.01.040. Applicant is requesting a  variance from Sections 503.2 and 603 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to  allow the replacement of an existing structure with a new structure at less than the required 75- foot setback from the Ordinary High-Water Level of Lake of the Woods and allow a deck to be  constructed greater than the 15% of the structure setback. Lake of the Woods is a General  Development Lake. 

Brett Dahl was representing James Dahl 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. There were 5  letters of correspondence recognized by the Board. 

Name of Applicant: James Dahl Date: February 5, 2025 Parcel #: 19.63.01.040 Variance Application #: 25-02V 

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result in 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? Zoned 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? Remains residential. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot/plat size. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size 

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

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

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

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

Condition(s):  

1. Must maintain minimum 10-foot setback from lot lines. 

2. Deck size no larger than 10 feet toward water. 

3. No closer to the lake than the previous structure. 

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. 

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

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

 January 8, 2025 _____________________________________ Date Marshall Nelson 

 Vice Chair, Planning Commission 

Mio made a motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting, seconded by Marhula. All in favor. Mio made a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Marhula. All in favor. Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #25-01CU by Rob Kasella (Brent  Fredrickson Agent): A tract in Government Lot Three (3), Section Seventeen (17), Township  One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.17.24.030  (For Reference Only). Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section  401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a commercial use consisting  of a private winter ice fishing access road to Lake of the Woods in a Residential Development  Zoning District (R1). Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Brent Fredrickson and Rob Kasella were in attendance 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. The applicants wanted to note that Mike Bubalo and Louis Taylor were in attendance and were in favor of the  request.  

Name of Applicant: Robert Kasella Date: February 5, 2025 

Location/Legal Description: A tract in Government Lot Three (3), Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.17.24.030 (For Reference Only). 

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

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

Why or why not? Lake access. 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

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

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

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

Why or why not?  

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

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

Why or why not? Graceton Beach Road. 

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

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 access. 

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. Termination upon sale or transfer unless sold to Brent Fredrickson (Agent) 

2. No parking equipment or houses (ice).

3. A single four (4) foot x eight (8) foot sign is allowed. 

4. No parking on County Road 4. 

5. Must comply with the Solid Waste Ordinance. 

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 ( ) 

 February 5, 2025 _____________________________________ Date Marshall Nelson 

 Vice Chair, Planning Commission 

Motion made by Mio 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 

– Consideration of Interim Use Permit #25-01IU by Andrew and Rachel Lundbohm: Lot  Two (2), Block Two (2) of Angle Outpost Acres in Section Twenty-six (26), Township One  Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West (Angle) – Parcel ID#  02.57.02.020. 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 Rural  Residential Development Zoning District (R2). Lake of the Woods is a General Development  Lake. 

Rachel and Andrew Lundbohm were called at their home 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: Andrew & Rachel Lundbohm Date: February 5, 2025 Location/Legal Description: Lot Two (2), Block Two (2), Angle Outpost Acres Parcel Number: 02.57.02.020 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential 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? Tourism/Air BNB. 

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

• Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms

• Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • 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? See application. 

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

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

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/per application. 

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 (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? None. 

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? 4 

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? See app. 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):  

X 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 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 ( ) Approved with Conditions (X ) Denied ( ) 

 February 5, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Marshall Nelson 

 Vice 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 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Dunnell. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:47 PM. 

January 1, 2025

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

7:00 P.M. on January 8, 2025 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Marshall Nelson, Monica  Dohmen, Ken Horntvedt, Tom Mio, Nancy Dunnell, 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 – Nelson/Johnson. All in favor. 

Election of Chair: Nomination of Ken Horntvedt. All in favor. Approved 

Election of Vice Chair: Nomination of Marshall Nelson. All in favor. Approved. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 4, 2024, and Special Meeting from December 17, 2024. – Motion to  approve both – Marhula/Nelson. All in favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Board of Adjustments – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #25-01CU by Kyle and Kati Christianson: Lot  Twenty (20), Long Point Subdivision of Lake Shore of Government Lot Five (5) of Section  Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-four (164) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West  (Lakewood) – Parcel ID# 14.52.00.200. 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 shoreline stabilization due to the 2022 high water event. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

Kyle was connected to the meeting via phone 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 & Kati Christianson Date: January 8, 2025 

Location/Legal Description: Lot Twenty (20), Long Point Subdivision of Lake Shore of Government Lot Five  (5) of Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-four (164) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West  (Lakewood) – Parcel ID# 14.52.00.200. 

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 shoreline stabilization due to the 2022 high water event. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: ________________________________________________ 

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 ( )  January 8, 2025 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Marhula. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:15 PM. 

October 2, 2024

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, 2nd by Dohmen. All in favor, passed. Motion to open Board of Adjustments made by Mio, 2nd 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.

September 4, 2024

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, 2nd by Dohmen. All in favor, passed. Motion to open Planning Commission made by Mio, 2nd 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.

August 7, 2024

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

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

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

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 3, 2024- Motion to approve –Nelson/Marhula. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #24-03V by Zachary and Kristi Hasbargen: A tract of land located in the  SE¼SE¼ of Section Fifteen (15), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West  (Spooner) – Parcel ID# 30.15.41.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.6 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 Baudette River. The Baudette River is a Tributary River segment. 

Kristi Hasbargen 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: Kristi Hasbargen Date: August 7, 2024 Parcel #: 30.15.41.000 Variance Application #: 24-03V 

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Rural 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? No change in use of property. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Meandering portion of Baudette River. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Meandering portion of Baudette River. 

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? Meandering portion of Baudette River. 

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 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

 August 7, 2024 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

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

Motion to close the Board of Adjustment made by Nelson, 2nd by Johnson. All in favor, passed. Motion to open Planning Commission made by Dohmen, 2nd by Marhula. All in favor, passed. 

– Consideration of Interim Use Permit #24-04IU by Christopher and Ashley Olson: Lot Three (3), Block  One (1), Turgeon Estates in Section Twenty (20), Township One-hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range  Thirty-one (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID# 24.60.01.030. Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit as  required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term  vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). 

Chris Olson 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: Christopher and Ashley Olson Date: August 7, 2024 Location/Legal Description: Lot Three (3), Block One (1), Turgeon Estates Parcel Number: 24.60.01.030 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential 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? In growth corridor. 

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 • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • 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? Per application. 

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

Why or why not? Residential. 

4) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Public road, Noble Drive. 

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? Per application. 

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? 6 people. 

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? 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? 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 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.

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 ( ) 

 August 7, 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 Nelson. All in favor,  motion carried. 

– 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. 

As Tom Flaherty was not present at the meeting, motion was made by Nelson to table the request until the  next meeting, 2nd by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Dohmen made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Nelson. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:42 PM.

July 3, 2024

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on July 3, 2024  

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Nelson/Johnson. All in favor.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 1, 2024- Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor.    

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #24-02V by Melvin Mollberg: Lot 8, Block 1, River Oaks Plat in Section  One (1), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wabanica) –  Parcel ID# 23.52.01.080. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.5 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a garage at less than the required fifty  (50) foot setback from Oak Harbor Drive.  

Melvin Mollberg 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: Melvin Mollberg Date: July 3, 2024  

Location/ Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 1, River Oaks Plat in Section One (1), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wabanica) – Parcel ID# 23.52.01.080.  

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a garage at less than the required fifty (50) foot setback from  Oak Harbor Drive.  

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

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

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

a. YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remain the same. 

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

a. YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 

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

a. YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and septic placement. 

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

a. YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remain the same. 

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

a. YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and septic placement. 

7) Condition(s): Must maintain 40’ setback from edge of ROW. 

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 ( ) 

 July 3, 2024 ___________________________________   Date Ken Horntvedt  Chair, Board of Adjustment  

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

Motion made by Mio and 2nd by Nelson to close Board of Adjustment meeting. All in favor, passed  Motion to open Planning Commission meeting by Mio 2nd by Marhula. All in favor, passed.  

Planning Commission – New Business  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-02CU by Jeremy and Connie Grindeland: Lot Four  (4), Block One (1), Sandy Shores, Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163)  North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.55.01.040. 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 a boat ramp and repair/replacement of existing rock rip rap.  

Jeremy and Connie Grindeland were present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.  

Name of Applicant: Jeremy and Connie Grindeland Date: July 3, 2024    

Location/Legal Description: Lot Four (4), Block One (1), Sandy Shores, Section Twenty-one (21), Township  One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.55.01.040.  

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential Development  Zoning District (R2).  

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

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

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

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

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

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

 YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreline of L.O.W. 

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: Must follow DNR requirements as applicable.  

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 ( ) 

 July 3, 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 Johnson. All in favor,  motion passed.  

– Consideration of Interim Use Permit #24-03IU by Steve and Amy Olson: The West Half (1/2) of  the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Seven (7), Township One-hundred Sixty-three (163) North,  Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.07.12.000. Applicant is requesting an Interim  Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate  a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential Development Zoning District (R2). 

Steve and Amy Olson were present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of  fact. 

Name of Applicant: Steve and Amy Olson Date: July 3, 2024    

Location/Legal Description: The West Half (1/2) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Seven (7), Township  One-hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.07.12.000. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential Development  Zoning District (R2).  

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

Why or why not? Economic development. 

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 • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • 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? Per application. 

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

Why or why not? R2 Rural Residential. 

4) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A  ( ) 

Why or why not? County Road 52. 

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 ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? Plenty of on site parking. 

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

Why or why not? Not needed. 

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 (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Not needed. 

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? 6 people. 

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? 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? 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 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 ( ) 

 July 3, 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 as presented and seconded by Mio. All in favor,  motion carried.  

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Nelson. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:36 PM. 

February 7, 2024

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

February 7, 2024 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Monica Dohmen, Ken  Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Nancy Dunnell, and Marshall Nelson. Others present were Land and Water Planning Director  Josh Stromlund. Wes Johnson was 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: January 3, 2024- Motion to approve – Marhula/Nelson. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Comission – New Business 

  • Consideration of Interim Use Permit #24-02IU by Walleye Empire, LLC: A parcel of land lying in the  Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4 SW1/4), Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.25.33.020. Applicant is requesting an Interim  Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short term vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). 

Tom Harig 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: Walleye Empire, LLC Date: February 7, 2024 Location/Legal Description: See Attached Parcel Number: 19.25.33.022 

Project Proposal: 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 (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? Development corridor. 
  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 • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • 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? See application. 
  3. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural residential and recreation. 
  4. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Private drive off Hwy 172 NW. 
  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? Remain the same.
  6. Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Plenty of room onsite. 
  7. Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Adequate vegetation. 
  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 (X) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? No signage needed. 
  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? See conditions. 
  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? See application.  
  11. Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? See 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 The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified 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:  

  1. Maximum of 3 people per Winter Agreement until upgraded sewer system. 
  2. Maximum of 9 people once sewer system is upgraded. 
  3. Maximum occupancy limited to septic system design. 
  4. Septic system upgraded by December 31, 2025. 

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 ( ) 

 February 7, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

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

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by Dunnell. All  in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:31 PM.

May 1, 2024

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

7:00 P.M. on May 1, 2024

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Johnson. All in favor.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 7, 2024- Motion to approve – Marhula/Nelson. All in favor.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.
Planning Commission – New Business

  • Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-01CU by Loren and Dawn Horner: A parcel of land lying in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE1⁄4NE1⁄4) of Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North of Range Thirty-two (32) West and Government Lot One (1), Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North of Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#’s 24.07.22.010 and 23.12.11.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of a rock rip rap project to stabilize the shoreline.

Loren Horner 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: Loren Horner Date: May 1, 2024

Location/Legal Description: A parcel of land lying in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE1⁄4NE1⁄4) of Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North of Range Thirty-two (32) West and Government Lot One (1), Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North of Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#’s 24.07.22.010 and 23.12.11.010. Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of a rock rip rap project to stabilize the shoreline.

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? No change

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

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

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

Why or why not? Rainy River 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: DNR permit needed if it becomes required.
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 ( )
May 1, 2024 _________________________
Date Ken Horntvedt

Chair, Planning Commission
Motion made by Mio to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Johnson. All in favor,
motion carried.

  • Consideration of Amendments to the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.
    Group discussion regarding proposed changes to the ordinance, mainly around new language about feedlot
    setbacks.
    Motion to move ordinance to the Board of Commissioners for approval. Marshall/Mio. All in favor, motion
    carried
    With no further business before the Planning Commission, Marhula made a motion to adjourn and seconded by
    Mio. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:27 PM.

January 3, 2024

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

January 3, 2024 

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

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

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

Election of Chair: Dohmen nominated Ken Horntvedt, Seconded by Dunnell. Motion passed. Election of Vice Chair: Mio nominated Marshall Nelson. Seconded by Marhula. Motion passed. Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 6, 2023- Motion to approve – Marhula/Johnson. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

  • Consideration of Variance #24-01V by Leroy Howard: Lot 3 and the West Forty-five (45) feet of  Lot 4, Block 2, Dawley Estates in Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North,  Range Thirty (30) West – Parcel ID# 31.53.02.030. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section  503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct a garage at less than the required  one hundred (100) foot setback from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of the Rainy River and  less than the required fifty (50) foot setback from the right-of-way of State Highway 11. The Rainy  River is an Agricultural River Segment. 

Leroy Howard 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: Leroy Howard Date: January 3, 2024 Parcel #: 31.53.02.030 Variance Application #: 24-01V 

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

  1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Rural 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? No change. 
  3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 
  4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 
  5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change.
  6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 

Condition(s): 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 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

 January 3, 2024 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to Approve as submitted – Marhula/Johnson. All in favor.  

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting – Nelson/Marhula. All in favor.  

Motion to open the Planning Commission – Mio/Dohmen. All in favor.  

Planning Commission – New Business 

  • Consideration of Interim Use Permit #24-01IU by Daniel Klis: Lot 2, Block 1, East Pine Creek,  according to the recorded plat thereof, in Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 02.51.01.020. Applicant is requesting an Interim  Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a  short-term vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). This portion of Pine Creek is  considered Lake of the Woods, a General Development Lake. 

Richard McKeever from Young’s Bay Resort was present at the meeting representing Daniel Klis to  discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the information in the  application. Five letters of correspondence regarding this application were presented for the record.  

Letters received were from Ralph and Tracy Gardner, Tim Murray, Todd Leake, Rick Finnie and Lance  Hapka. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Daniel Klis Date: January 3, 2024 Location/Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, East Pine Creek Plat Parcel Number: 02.51.01.020 

Project Proposal: 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 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? Resort 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 • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms
    • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • 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? Per application. 
  3. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural residential. 
  4. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Existing 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 more than full time residence. 
  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. 
  7. Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Nothing needed. 
  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? 6 occupants. 
  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? 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? Per application. Reasonable in a residential area. 

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. 

The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application.

The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application.

The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

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

No on street parking is allowed. 

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

Additional Conditions 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 ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) 

 January 3, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Chair, Planning Commission 

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

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

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Marhula made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Dunnell. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:33 PM.