Skip to content

April 7, 2021

LAND & WATER

April 7, 2021

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 3, 2021 M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

Consideration of Variance #21-02V by Terry Brateng: Lots 4 & 5, Block 1,  Subdivision of Outlot A of Riverside Plat, Section Seventeen (17), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#: 24.51.01.040.  Applicant is requesting a Variance as required by Section 501.1 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to create a lot less than the minimum one (1) acre lot size for a  non-shoreland property located in a Residential Zoning District (R1). 

Mr. Mio asked Mr. Brateng to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Brateng explained that  he has a river lot and then recently purchased this backlot. His request is to retain a portion of the  lot for a future storage shed and then sell the other portion to his brother and sister in law.  Discussion between the Board and Mr. Brateng ensued. They discussed future develop plans of  the lots, setback requirements, and adjoining the back lot with the river lot. 

With no further discussion from the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any  objections. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE Name of Applicant: Terry Brateng Date: April 7, 2021 

Parcel #: 24.51.01.040 Variance Application #: 21-02V 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. 

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/residential. 

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

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

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

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? Original plat. 

Condition(s): River lot (Lot 13, Block 1, Riverside Plat) and Lot #4 (Lot 4, Block 1, Subdivision of  Outlot A of Riverside Plat) to be forever attached as one parcel. 

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

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

APPROVED (X) DENIED ( ) Motion to Approve with Condition: M/S/P Marhula/Head. All in favor, none opposed.  

– Consideration of Variance #21-03V by Michael Klein: Part of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1,  Wheeler’s Point, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 19.52.01.040. Applicant is requesting a Variance  as required by Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to  construct an addition less than the required ten (10) foot property line and the seventy five (75) foot Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) setbacks within the shoreland area of  Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development lake. 

Mr. Mio asked Mr. Klein to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Klein explained that he  would like to add a small addition to the existing structure to accommodate a full bath, utility  room, washer/dryer, closet and storage. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Klein ensued.  They discussed the age of the current structure, proximity to the lot line as per the survey, and  the Wheeler’s Point Sanitary District. 

With no further discussion from the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any  objections.

Name of Applicant: Michael Klein Date: April 7, 2021 

Parcel #: 19.52.01.040 Variance Application #: 21-03VLake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

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

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

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

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 and position of structure. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Previous owners and plat. 

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 and position of structures. 

Condition(s): None 

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

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

APPROVED (X) DENIED ( ) 

Motion to Approve As Presented: M/S/P Johnson/Marhula. All in favor, none opposed.  

With no further business in front of the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio entertained a  motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting. 

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head. All in favor, none  opposed. 

Mr. Mio entertained a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting. 

Motion to open the Planning Commission meeting: M/S/P Head/Marhula. All in favor,  none opposed.  

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-04CU by Devlin Reasy: Lots 4 and 5,  Block 1, Turgeon Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161)  North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 24.60.01.040. 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 and more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of the shore impact  zone of the Rainy River for the purposes of controlling erosion and sedimentation. The  Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment. 

Mr. Mio asked Mr. Reasy to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Reasy explained that he  would like revitalize an existing access to the Rainy, address bank erosion and behind the house  address some erosion with fabric and rock in the ravine. Discussion between the Board and Mr.  Reasy ensued. They discussed proper erosion control and seeding the exposed soil immediately. 

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any  objections. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Devlin Reasy Date: April 7, 2021 

Location/Legal Description: Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Turgeon Estates, Section Twenty (20),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID#  24.60.01.040. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material  within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of the shore  impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of controlling erosion and sedimentation. 

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? Control erosion. 

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? Erosion control. 

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

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? Reason for project. 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

Why or why not? Reason for project. 

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Approved as Presented (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve As Presented: M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula. All in favor, none opposed.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-05CU by Knife River on behalf of The  Welberg Family Trust: The SW¼NE ¼; SE¼NW¼; NE¼SW¼; NW¼SE¼; Section  Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West, Parcel ID# 19.36.13.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as  required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow  the expansion and continue the extractive and commercial use of the property consisting  of aggregate mining and washing and hot mix asphalt plant in a Rural Residential Zoning  District (R2). 

Mr. Mio asked the representative from Knife River to come forward and explain the request. Mr.  Basgaard represented Knife River and provided a brief history of the project area as well as  detailing the future expansion to the current project areas. Discussion between the Board and Mr.  Basgaard ensued. They discussed noise, dust control, hours of operation, truck routes, permit  requirements from MPCA, reclamation, quantity of aggregate, existing berms, and proposed  berm locations from the overburden of the proposed expansion site. 

Mio asked if anyone in the audience would like to say anything regarding the request. 

Jonathan McHaney, lives to the east of the pit, brought up truck traffic routes and screening  between the residences and pit. Through this discussion, the requested area doesn’t involve the  area where Mr. McHaney was talking about. There are two property owners and Mr. McHaney  was talking about the pit owned by the other landowner. 

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Knife River on behalf of The Welberg Family Trust Date: April 7, 2021 

Location/Legal Description: The SW¼NE ¼; SE¼NW¼; NE¼SW¼; NW¼SE¼; Section  Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West,  Parcel ID# 19.36.13.000. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C  of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion and continue the  extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining and washing and  hot mix asphalt plant 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? Existing aggregate mining. 

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? Aggregate mining proposal. 

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? No change. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Same access as before expansion. 

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from  adjacent properties? YES ( ) 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: 10-year CUP – Must meet all MPCA  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 ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Head. All in favor, none opposed.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-06CU by Knife River on behalf of  Michael Gamache: The SW¼NW ¼, Section Three (3), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 23.03.23.000. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive use of the property consisting of  aggregate mining in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2). 

Mr. Mio asked Mr. Basgaard to explain the request. Mr. Basgaard provided a brief history of the  project area as well as detailing the current requested project areas. Discussion between the  Board and Mr. Basgaard ensued. They discussed noise, dust control, hours of operation, truck  routes, permit requirements from MPCA, reclamation, quantity of aggregate, existing berms, and  proposed berm locations from the overburden of the proposed expansion site. 

Mio asked if anyone in the audience would like to say anything regarding the request. 

Brian Labore, landowner to the west, inquired as to the noise, hours of operation, traffic  noise and congestion, and if a crusher will be present. 

Mr. Marhula and Mr. Stromlund relayed phone conversations they had with the adjacent  neighbor regarding a lot line dispute. 

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Knife River on behalf of Michael Gamache Date: April 7, 2021 

Location/Legal Description: The SW¼NW ¼, Section Three (3), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 23.03.23.000. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C  of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive use of the property  consisting of aggregate mining in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2). 

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

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? Aggregate mining to create a pond. 

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Existing road. 

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? Via 38th Ave NW. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: CUP tied to LOW County Road #6 project. 

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/S/P Horntvedt/Johnson. All in favor, none opposed. With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:59 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Johnson/Marhula