Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 2, 2021 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Wes Johnson,  Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, and Reed McFarlane. The following members were absent: Scott  Head and Marshall Nelson. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh  Stromlund, Keith Aune, Travis Barclay, Jon Waibel, and Brian Ney. 

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

Motion to approve agenda – K/D 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 5, 2021 – R/W 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #21-05V by Gary Kullhem and Travis Barclay: Lots 1  and 2, Block 2, Rainy River Retreat, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.62.02.010 and  19.62.02.020. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Sections 503.7 and 605 of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure at less than the  required fifty (50) Right-of-Way setback from State Highway 172 NW and split two non conforming lots of record under common ownership in a Commercial-Recreation Zoning  District. 

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner was present to come to the table and explain their request. Mr.  Kullhem approached the table and explained he was the representative for this request. Mr.  Kullhem explained that the property has been owned by himself for roughly six years. Mr.  Barclay then approached the table and explained he was a representative as a prospective owner  of the lot, should it split and wanted to place a 44’ x 70’ shop, encroaching the allowed setbacks.  Discussion between the Board, Mr. Kullhem, and Mr. Barclay ensued. Keith Aune (nearby  resident near the parcel in question at lot 9). He posed questions regarding the well that services  rainy river retreat, and wanted to better grasp the implications the new development would have  on this well. They discussed the lot size (already nonconforming), setback requirements, and the  Wheeler’s Point Sanitary District. 

Mio noted written correspondence was received from Steve Rutzel (nearby resident on lot 5),  Kent Buschel Spears, David Lang, Linda Straus regarding taxes, the shared well, and  trash/recycling/fish cleaning….etc, and the upkeep of the road/ increase of traffic. With no  further discussion from the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio 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: Gary Kullhem Date: June 2, 2021 

Parcel #: 19.62.02.010 and  19.62.02.020 

Variance Application #: 21-05V

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? Currently commercial. 

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 commercial and it is suitable to  place a workshop in that area. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and county setbacks. 

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 and county setbacks. Condition(s): 

1) To be used only for commercial use. 

2) Building start must be completed by December 31, 2023.  

3) Lot sale from lot split can occur at anytime after June 2, 2021.  

4) Living quarter concerns will be addressed by MDH process.  

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 ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: D/W. All in favor, none opposed.  

With no further business in front of the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio entertained a  motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting. 

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting: K/D. All in favor, none opposed. Mr. Mio entertained a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting. Motion to open the Planning Commission meeting: D/R. All in favor, none opposed.  Planning Commission – Old Business 

– Consideration of Final Plat of Hooper Creek: A parcel of land located in Government  Lots (One) 1, (Five) 5, and (Six) 6 all within Section Eighteen (18), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West. Applicant is requesting to  create sixteen (16) tracts for a residential development. 

Mr. Mio asked if a representative was present from Hooper Creek LLC was present and to come  forward and explain the request. Mr. Brian Ney stated he could be the representative for Hooper  Creek, LLC. This was tabled last discussion as per deficiencies with the submittal of the final  plat, and the changes have now been rectified. Mio noted no further written correspondence was  received and nobody in attendance had any objections.  

Motion to Approve Final Plat: D/R. All in favor, none opposed.  

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-09CU by Leroy Howard: Lot  3, Block 2, Dawley Estates, Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Sixty  (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel ID# 31.53.02.030. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to cumulatively move more than ten (10) cubic  yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose  of constructing a private boat ramp. 

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner or a representative was present to come to the table and explain  their request. Mr Howard was present as the current landowner. Mr. Mio suggested that the  removal of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material within the basin area should also be  added to the permit, which is outside the shore impact zone.  

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of 

Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any  objections. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Leroy Howard 

Date: June 2, 2021 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 2, Dawley Estates, Section Eleven (11), Township  One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel  

ID# 31.53.02.030 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902  of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to cumulatively move  more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of the  Rainy River for the purpose of constructing a private boat ramp. 

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? Expansion and upgrade of an existing ramp. 

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

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? Ramp will be bermed. 

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? Vegetative cover will be restored to previous state 

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or  floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? It’s a boat launch so it needs to be within the floodplain/way of the  river. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Ramp will be bermed.  

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Remains 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? It’s a boat ramp/launch. 

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? No change.  

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 (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Not needed.  

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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: This CUP, also includes more than fifty (50)  yards in non-shore impact zone. Vegetative cover must be planted to subdue erosion.  

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: D/K. All in favor, none opposed.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-10CU by Nicholas and Jessie  Anthony: NE¼SW¼NE¼, SW¼SE¼NE¼, S½SE¼SE¼NE¼, Section Twenty six (26), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West – Parcel ID#: 19.26.13.010. 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 short-term transient rental in a Rural Residential  

Development (R2) Zoning District. 

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner or a representative was present to come to the table and explain  their request. Jon Waibel came to the table and explained he was the representative for the  project in lieu of the landowners. He explained the landowners are looking to rent this property  out and are aware of the MDH regulations regarding the well and parking, and a compliance  inspection has been completed for the existing septic system. The landowners have indicated that  this will be more used as a winter rental rather than a summer rental and there are no current  plans to begin renting it out this summer. They discussed MDH guidelines and indicated to the  representative that the landowners must complete and provide all applicable information to MDH  prior to the conditional use.  

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of  Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any  objections. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Nicholas and Jessie Anthony 

Date: June 2, 2021 

Location/Legal Description: NE¼SW¼NE¼, SW¼SE¼NE¼, S½SE¼SE¼NE¼, Section  Twenty-six (26), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  

Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#: 19.26.13.010 

Project Proposal: 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 short-term  transient rental in a Rural Residential Development (R2) Zoning 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? Remote 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 comply with MDH guidelines. 

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? Access to MN172 

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 ( ) 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? Individual Septic System with compliance inspection.  

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? Individual Septic System and Private Wells (x2) 

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? No change or additional traffic as before.  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1.) This CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property.  

2.) Must meet MDH requirements. 

3.) Must pay lodging tax. 

4.) Quiet time 10 pm to 6 am.  

5.) Must meet State Fire Code. 

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: K/D. All in favor, none opposed.  

Tom Mio would like to resign as Chairman of the Board. Board asked to table this discussion  until the next meeting.  

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Adjournment: D/W