Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on August 5, 2020 

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

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: July 1, 2020 – M/S/P McFarlane/Horntvedt 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #20-04V by Larry Scharmer: Lot 3, Block 1, Lukes Estates in Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162)  

North, Range Thirty-two (32) West. Applicant is requesting a variance from  

Section 501.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the  creation of two nonconforming lots which do not meet the minimum one (1) acre  lot size requirements in a Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 

Mio asked for the representative of Mr. Scharmer to come forward and explain the request. Joe  LaValla explained that he owns one lot and Mr. Scharmer owns two and would like to split one  of his lots. Mr. Scharmer would retain 55’ and Mr. LaValla would receive 45’. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. LaValla and the Board. They discussed Mr. LaValla’s future  building plans and lot sizes. 

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Larry Scharmer Date: August 5, 2020 Parcel #: 19.58.01.030 Variance Application #: 20-04V

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? _Changes will create larger lots________ 

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? _Still residential___________________ 

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

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

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

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

Condition(s): ____Maintain 10’ setback______________________________ 

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 ( )  August 5, 2020 

 Date Tom Mio Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to approve with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt 

– Consideration of Variance #20-05V by William and Karen Novacek: The  NE¼SW¼; Less the Westerly One Hundred Sixty-five (165) feet in Section  Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West. 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 less 

than the required one hundred (100) foot setback from the Winter Road River.  The Winter Road River is a Tributary River segment. 

Mio asked Mr. Novacek to come forward and explain his request. Mr. Novacek explained how  long the structure has been there and that all his current utilities are where the current house is  located. He will upgrade his current septic system within the required upgrade period.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Novacek. They discussed historic setbacks,  erosion/sloughing, possibility of moving new house 10’ to the east. 

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: William Novacek Date: August 5, 2020 Parcel #: 24.20.31.000 Variance Application #: 20-05V 

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 waterfront________ 

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? _Original house site and shoreland erosion 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Erosion and original site before newer  100’ setback_____________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Remains the same___________ 

Condition(s): ____Move new house 10’ East___________________________________

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 ( ) 

 August 5, 2020  

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to approve with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane 

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #20-05CU by JRF  Properties, LLC: Lots 1-6, Block 2, Marina Drive Estates, Section Thirty-six  (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel IDs# 19.70.02.010 through  19.70.02.060. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the  operation of a commercial business consisting of a seasonal camping area/RV  Park in a Commercial-Recreation District. The proposed project area is non shoreland. 

Mio asked Mr. Fish to come forward and explain his request. Mr. Fish explained that he would  like to expand the campground he was approved for a few years ago. He would like to expand  the number of sites and increase the green area. 

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Fish. Number of units, Department of  Health regulations, shower houses, rental plans and visual barriers were discussed. 

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

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

Name of Applicant: JRF Properties, LLC Date: August 5, 2020 

Location/Legal Description: Lots 1-6, Block 2, Marina Drive Estates, Section Thirty-six (36),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Lake of the Woods  County, Minnesota – Parcel IDs 19.70.02.010 through 19.70.02.060.

Project Proposal: To allow the operation of a commercial business consisting of a seasonal  camping area/RV Park in a Commercial-Recreation 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/Recreational Area_________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Must meet state requirements______________________________ 

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

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage  features, and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? __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? __State Hwy 172 plus one private and County Road_____________ 

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

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

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

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

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __Either sewer system or septic and will provide an additional well__ 

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

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

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

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

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? _State Hwy/County and Private Roads______________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _MDH codes and requirements be followed_ 

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 5, 2020 _____________________________________  Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

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