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

7:00 P.M. on July 6, 2022 

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 1, 2022- Motion to approve-Dave/ Wes. All in favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

Board of Adjustment: New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #22-04V by Steven & Marissa Theis: A tract in Government Lot 1, East of the Winter Road  River and North of State Highway 172, less deeded in Section Twenty (20), Township One-hundred Sixty-one (161) North,  Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 24.20.12.050. Applicants are requesting a variance from Section 503.6 of the  Lake of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow a structure that will not meet the required one-hundred (100) foot setback  from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of Winter Road River. Winter Road River is a Tributary River segment.  

Steven Theis was present and discussed the request with the board. The board then moved on to the findings of fact and  decision.  

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? Personal expansion in a 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 and right of way. 

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change – remains the same. 

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

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

Condition(s): No closer than thirty-five (35) feet to road right of way. 

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

Motion to Approve with Conditions- Dave/Wes. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Variance #22-05V by Bonny & Michael Edin: Lots Nine (9) and Ten (10), Block One (1), Angle  Outpost Acres, in Section Twenty-six (26), Township One-hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West –

Parcel ID#’s: 02.57.01.090 and 02.57.01.100. Applicants are requesting a variance from Section 605.1 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the subdivision of two contiguous non-conforming lots of record in the  shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.  

Michael and Bonny Edin were present and discussed the request with the board. The board then moved on to the findings of fact  and decision.  

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 lots platted in 1981. 

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 – still residential. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size platted in 1981. 

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

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

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 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

Motion to approve as presented – Dave/Nancy. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Variance #22-06V by Katherine Houser: A tract in Government Lot 4, in Section Seventeen (17),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.17.23.030. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 603 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow construction of a  deck that exceeds fifteen (15) percent of the existing setback of the structure from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL)  of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.  

Mr. Houser was present and discussed the request with the board. The board then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

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 recreation. 

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 – no change. 

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

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

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

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

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? Lake setback. 

Condition(s): 

1. Cannot encroach any farther than drawing submitted. 

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

Motion to approve with Conditions – Ken/Wes. All in favor.  

Motion to Close Board of Adjustment/ Open Planning Commission – Nancy/Dave. All in favor.  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-10CU by Steve Cooper: A tract in the Northeast quarter of the  Northeast quarter described as follows: The East 400’ of the North 480’ in Section Twenty-five (25), Township One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID#18.25.11.010. Applicant, as required by  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance Section 401C, is requesting the commercial operation of a short-term  transient rental in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).  

Steven and Jolynn Cooper were present to discuss their request with the board. The board then moved on to the findings of  fact and decision.  

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? Recreational development. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Residential recreational development. No change. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? County Road 8 and private driveway 

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

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? Private septic. 

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? Well has been tested and septic will be brought up to code if needed. 

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? Natural vegetation. 

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 (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Not needed. 

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? Onsite parking in driveway. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) Applicant to work with Land and Water Planning Office to get septic up to code in two (2) year time period.

2) Occupancy to be based on septic system capacity. 

3) CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property. 

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- Dave/Monica. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance Revisions 

o Articles I – VIII (One – Nine) 

LWPO Director Josh Stromlund discussed ordinance revisions with the board. No action took place at this time as this was  more of a question/answer and discussion. The board asked Stromlund if he would draft language for compliance inspections to  be completed upon sale/transfer of property in the county. Again, no action took place in regards to the ordinance at this time.  

Motion to Adjourn at 10:07 PM- Wes/Ken. All in favor.