Skip to content

July 3, 2024

LAND & WATER

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.