Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on January 9, 2019 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 5, 2018 

M/S/P McFarlane/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-01CU by MLK Holding Company  Inc.: The West 100 feet of the W½NE¼; The East 100 feet of the West 200 feet of  the South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; The East 200 feet of the West 400 feet of the  South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; the W½NE¼ Less Deeded, all within Section  Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two  (32) West, and the SW¼SE¼ less the West 100 feet in Section Thirteen (13),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID#s:  19.24.12.010, 19.24.12.011, 19.24.12.020, 19.24.12.000 and 19.13.43.000. Applicant  is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a winter access road to Lake of the  Woods; storage shed for off-season equipment storage and storage of fish houses in a  Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).  

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

Mr. Kinsella explained that he would like to operate an ice road for their clients who stay at his  resort, Border View Lodge. They have increased business and bought Wildwood Inn, bow called  Settlers Point, as overflow to increase business. He explained that equipment and work wise  allowing clients to use their own wheel houses on Border View Lodge’s existing road. The will  only take wheel houses by reservation and are planning to limit it to 15-18 wheel houses at a  time. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Kinsella and the Board. Fish house storage, accommodating  changing client needs, road logistics and garbage volume were discussed.  

Mio read a letter into the record from Gary Moeller opposing the request. 

Several members of the public expressed concerns about the road, current/future use of Lake of  the Woods and the health of the fishery.  

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the  Findings of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: MLT&T, LLC and MLK Holding Company Inc. Date: January 9,  2019 

Location/Legal Description: The West 100 feet of the W½NE¼; The East 100 feet of the West 200  feet of the South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; The East 200 feet of the West 400 feet of the South 233  feet of the SW¼NE¼; the W½NE¼ Less Deeded, all within Section Twenty-four (24), Township  One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, and the SW¼SE¼ less the West  100 feet in Section Thirteen (13), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two  (32) – Parcel ID#s: 19.24.12.010, 19.24.12.011, 19.24.12.020, 19.24.12.000 and 19.13.43.000. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a winter access road to Lake of the Woods;  storage shed for off-season equipment storage and storage of fish houses 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? _Resort Development Area________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Adding to existing road and monitored by applicant____________ 

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Cannot access from 172, ice road access already exists_________ 

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? _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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___See conditions_______________________________________ 

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) Signage to include wordage that road is for private use of Border View Lodge only. Not a  public access 

2) Limited to 18 wheelhouse clients 

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 9, 2019 _________________________________  Date Tom Mio  Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion seconded by Horntvedt. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission.  Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head, meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. 

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

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund