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

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Ken Horntvedt,  Marshall Nelson, Reed McFarlane, Tom Mio, and Scott Head. The following members were  absent: Wes Johnson and Dave Marhula. 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/K 

With a motion to move the Election of Chair and Vice Chair to the end of the meeting.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 2, 2021- Motion to approve R/K 

With a motion to change Marshall from Present to Absent.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #21-06V by Dale Verbout: Lots 43 and 44, Block 1,  Schmidt Waag Subdivision, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163)  North, Range Thirty-three (33) West, Parcel ID# 16.53.01.430. Applicant is requesting a  variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to  allow construction of a structure at less than the required seventy-five (75) foot setback  from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of Lake of the Woods and at less than the  required ten (10) foot line setback. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Tom asked if landowner was present, Dale Verbout was in attendance to discuss the claim. Josh  Stromlund provided the board with a new map that indicates the adjacent neighboring properties  (to the north and south) are both approximately 72-73 (seventy-two to seventy-three) feet from  the Ordinary High-Water Mark. Josh also indicated that this map was not to be taken with  complete certainty, as the aerial imagery can show slight variation to what is actually present.  Dale also remarked about getting allowed a 12% (twelve percent) impediment on the allotted 75  (seventy-five) foot set back allotment for the Lake. Josh indicated that since he was starting with  a bare lot that this allotment, which is actually 15% (fifteen percent) did not apply here. With the  75 (seventy-five) foot ordinary high water mark setback and the proposed structure length with  garage and house combined at 66 (sixty-six) feet that would be hard to fit a septic system into the  lot on the back. Dale also inquired about where his property line extended out to, Josh indicated  that the survey pins that were placed when the plat was created were placed based on where the  water level was at that time. Dale indicated that his property is a 220 (two-hundred twenty) foot  long lot. 75 (seventy-five) plus 66 (sixty-six) is 141 (one-hundred forty-one) feet, which leaves  79 (seventy-nine) feet for a septic system, minus the 10 (ten) foot lot line setback, so only 69  (sixty-nine) feet. Dale indicated that would be enough room for the septic system so he didn’t  think the ordinary high water mark setback would be of further issue or discussion. Dale then  inquired about his lot line setback on the north to be reduced to 5 (five) feet to fit the proposed structure width of 34 (thirty-four) feet while still allowing access to the lake on the south lot line.  The neighbor to the north has a garage located within 1 (one) foot from the property lines. Dale  was unsure of when this property was constructed. Dale also inquired about how the mound  system would affect his neighbor’s property in terms of runoff from the mound system. Josh  indicated that there would be slight run off potential towards the neighbors from what falls on  top of the mound. Reed stated a personal opinion on the matter. First, it was a 50 (fifty) foot lot,  and it was that size when you purchased the property. You knew what the setbacks would be  when you bought it since the setbacks have no changed in that time. You had a compliant  structure when you purchased the property that did meet all setbacks. We want to try and uphold  all zoning ordinances and setback requirements when we can. The other side of it, those are very  small lots and we have a variance process, so that variances can be granted in certain  circumstances. When variances are granted, they are usually tied to conditions and there is  usually good reasoning to support the issuance of a variance. Dale then indicated that he had  talked to both of his neighbors in the north and south and neither neighbor opposed his variance,  which is why they didn’t send any correspondence or be present for the meeting because they  had no objections to his claim. He also indicated that with the 5 (five) foot infringement on the  lot line setback he wasn’t sure if construction work would have to cross the property line or not  to complete the work when he was building. Then the board asked Dale if he had thought about  plans for proposed building if this variance was to no be granted. Dale indicated that they could  change their plan of a garage to more of a carport style and move more of the rooms in the house  to the second floor. Dale also indicated that the purpose of this home would be to sell his current  home in Roseau and make this more of a residence then just a cabin. The board presented the  public correspondence, a letter from Lisa and Paul Scheirer, which discusses the setback from  the ordinary high-water mark, but that part of the variance has been revoked. All board members  have received and read this correspondence. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISIONSUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Dale Verbout Date: July 7, 2021 Parcel #: 16.53.01.430 Variance Application #: 21-06V 

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 area with small 50’ 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? Residential – no change. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? 50’ lot size. 

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

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

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 

Condition(s): 

1) Completed by December 31, 2024. 

2) Variance for 5’ setback on north side of property only. 

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 ( )  July 7, 2021 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/R. All in favor, none opposed. 

Board of Adjustment – Election of Chair and Vice Chair.  

Reed informed the board that he has purchased a new property in Texas and has sold his property  in Lake of the Woods County and will now only be in the County during the summer months but  not a full-time resident and will be missing more than four meetings. Therefore, Reed intends to  resign from the board. Reed will need to contact Cody Hasbargen so that he will be able to  nominate a replacement for the board. 

Election of Chair- Tom Mio – Motion to approve M/R All in favor.  

Election of Vice Chair: Dave Marhula- Motion to approve R/S All in favor. Motion to adjourn- M/S All in favor, none opposed.  

Meeting adjourned at 7:46 PM.