Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 6, 2018 

Chairman Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Steve  Levasseur, Scott Head, Reed McFarlane, Ken Horntvedt and Dave Marhula. Members absent:  Gerald Levasseur 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/Horntvedt 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 2, 2018 

M/S/P S. Levasseur/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– Horntvedt indicated that he would abstain from the vote regarding Variance #18-02V 

Board of Adjustments: 

New Business 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-02V by Joshua Lessman: Lots 14 – 16 of  Wabanica Beaches Subdivision, Section 12, Township 161 North, Range 32 West  (Wabanica), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 23.51.00.140. Applicant  is requesting a Variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to allow construction of additions to an existing nonconforming structure that  will not meet the required setbacks from the Ordinary High-Water Level of Wabanica  Bay and the road right-of-way. Also, the applicant is requesting a Variance from Section  5.10 of the Lake of the Woods Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Ordinance to allow  the septic tank to be less than the required ten (10) feet from one of the additions.  Wabanica Bay is a Tributary River Segment. 

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

Mr. Lessman explained the position and dimensions of proposed structure additions and setback  distances of septic system. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Lessman. Structure height, septic systems and  number of bedrooms were discussed. 

Mio stated that there was a letter regarding the property and read the letter into the record. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Lessman, hearing none Mio  proceeded to the Findings of Fact. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Josh Lessman Date: June 6, 2018 

Parcel #: 23.51.00.140 Variance Application #: 18-02V 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 lot. 

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/waterfront/road. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? See #3. 

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

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

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

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

Condition(s): Septic must be up to code, completed by 12/31/2019. 

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 ( ) 

 June 6, 2018 

___________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, Horntvedt abstained, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-03V by Melvin Mollberg: Lot 8,  Block 1, River Oaks Subdivision, Section 1, Township 161 North, Range 32 West  (Wabanica), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – 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 construction of a structure at less than the required  one hundred (100) feet from the Ordinary High-Water Level of the Rainy River. The  Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment. 

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

Mr. Mollberg explained that he would like to build his home in line with his neighbors, closer  than the 100’ OHWL of the Rainy River. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Mollberg. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Mollberg, hearing none Mio  proceeded to the Findings of Fact. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Melvin Mollberg Date: June 6, 2018 Parcel #: 23.52.01.080 Variance Application #: 18-03V 

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 lot. 

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? Houses on both sides are closer to the  OHW. 

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

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

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot layout based on adjoining structures. 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) DENIED ( ) 

 June 6, 2018 

___________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request. 

Motions seconded by McFarlane. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-04V by Sportsman’s Eagle Ridge,  LLC (Gregg and Diana Hennum): A tract of land in Gov’t. Lot 8, Section 1,  Township 167 North, Range 33 West (Angle) Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota  – Parcel ID #06.01.44.021. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 501.2.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of a non conforming lot within the shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. The proposed non riparian lot is 60’ x 200’ and is for storage only, no sewer, water or bedrooms. Lake  of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

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

Mr. Hennum explained that property owners of Eagle Ridge would like additional storage and  there isn’t much room on their existing land for the storage capacity they would like. The  proposed structure’s dimensions and setbacks, easements and ownership were discussed. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Hennum, hearing none Mio  proceeded to the Findings of Fact. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Sportsman’s Eagle Ridge, LLC Date: June 6, 2018  Parcel #: 06.01.44.000 Variance Application #: 18-04V 

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? Allowing for joint storage units. 

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 when deeded to new owners. 3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot topography and cabin and septic layout. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? See #3. 

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

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

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

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

Condition(s): 

1) Easement must be addressed. 

2) Storage 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) DENIED ( ) 

 June 6, 2018 

___________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Horntvedt to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, motion passed. 

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn of the Board of  Adjustments.  

Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/S. Levasseur, meeting adjourned.  

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting.  

Planning Commission: 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-04CU by Dan  Crompton: That part of the South 500’ of the SE¼SW¼ lying westerly of Bostic  Creek except that part lying within Block 3, of Walleye Retreat Plat, in Section 21,  Township 162 North, Range 32 West (Wheeler), Lake of the Woods County,  Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.21.34.071. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use  Permit as required by Section 401-A of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to allow a commercial business consisting of boat dock rental slips in an  area that is zoned as Special Protection (SP). The Bostic Creek is a Tributary River  Segment. 

Mio asked Mr. Crompton to come to the table and explain the request. 

Mr. Crompton explained that he felt that his parcel does not need to be zoned Special Protection  and he would like to have the same option as his neighbors. He wants to add additional docks  and be allowed to rent dock slips. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Crompton. Number of slips and parking were discussed.

A member of the public expressed his opposition to the application. Additional discussion  ensued. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Crompton, hearing none Mio  proceeded to the Findings of Fact. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Daniel Crompton Date: June 6,  2018 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in of the South 500’ of the SE ¼ of SW ¼, lying  westerly of Bostic Creek, less platted, in Section 21, T-162N, R-32W (Wheeler). 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of boat  dock rental slips. 

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 area/shoreline location. 

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

Why or why not? With conditions. 

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? Addressed by DNR permit. 

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? Due to DNR permit. 

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? On the Bostic drainage. 

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? By DNR.

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

 YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? With conditions – address water access. 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? 

 YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Yes, resort area. 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Resort area. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? With conditions. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? With conditions. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) Allow only one additional dock tied to DNR Permit #2018-0380, dated April 20, 2018. 2) New dock not to extend past the current dock’s length (west of new dock’s location). 3) Conditional Use Permit expires when property is sold/transferred. 

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 ( ) 

 June 6, 2018 

_____________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by S. Levasseur. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-05CU by Riverbank  Marina, Inc. (Jack Stanhope): A tract of land in Section 36, Township 162 North,  Range 32 West (Wheeler), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID#  19.36.12.020. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the  operation of a commercial business consisting of a mobile home park and RV  Campground in a Commercial-Recreation District. The Rainy River is an Agricultural  River Segment. 

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

Mr. Stanhope explained that he would like to increase the capacity of the existing RV park.  Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Stanhope. Density and septic were discussed. 

A member of the public made a statement regarding support of project but concerns about  parking and road speed limits. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Stanhope, hearing none Mio  proceeded to the Findings of Fact.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Riverbank Marina – Jack Stanhope Date: June 6, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32 with the parcel ID# 19.36.12.020. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a mobile home park and RV  campground in a Commercial-Recreation 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? Resort area/existing campground. 

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

Why or why not? Water and sewer upgrades and state requirements to be met. 

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? Vegetative cover changes will be minimized. 

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 through existing roads. 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? 

 YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Campground and marina.

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Vacation/recreation area. 

11) 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? Being addressed in plan. 

12) 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? ______________________________________________________ 

13) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? See #10. 

14) 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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Existing marina. 

15) 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? ______________________________________________________ 

16) 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? Existing marina. 

17) 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? ______________________________________________________ 

18) 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? Parking is planned/road access.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: Must meet density requirements. 

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 ( ) 

 June 6, 2018 

_____________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by McFarlane. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-06CU by Ruth  Brunkhorst: Lot 3, Block 2, Boundary Commission Plat #1, Section 8, Township  163 North, Range 34 West (Lakewood), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 14.53.02.030. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as  required by Section 401-B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to  allow a commercial business consisting of a short-term vacation rental in a  Residential District (R1). Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Mio asked Mrs. Brunkhorst, along with Jason and Joanna Brunkhorst, to come to the table  and explain her request. 

Mr. Brunkhorst asked the Board to take no action on this application tonight so that they  can get more information from the community and the Board due to complaints that they  have recently received from their neighbors. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and the Brunkhorsts. Brunkhorst asked questions of  the Board and the Board stated concerns about parking, septic and space issues. 

Mio stated that there were four letters regarding this property and read them into the  record. 

Members of the public expressed concerns and opposition to the proposed rental of this  property.  

Motion made by Head to table the request until the July 11, 2018 Planning Commission  meeting.  

Motion seconded by Horntvedt. 

All in favor, motion passed.

With no further items for consideration before the Planning Commission, Mio entertained a  motion to adjourn. 

Adjournment: 

M/S/P Head/Horntvedt, meeting adjourned at 9:50 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