7:00 P.M. on March 1, 2023 

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 1, 2023- Motion to approve- Dave/Wes. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #23-02CU by GWE, LLC, on behalf of Thomas Finders: The East½East½NW¼NE¼, Section Twenty-seven (27), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162)  North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.27.12.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional  Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow  commercial activity consisting of up to six (6) multi-unit storage buildings in a non-shoreland Rural  Residential Zoning District (R2). 

The board discussed the request with the applicant Greg Hennum. The board was only able to view the site from  the road, due to the winter snow conditions present. Mr. Hennum explained his request as “Car Condos” or  “Man Caves” and said this practice is common in Florida. They are tall, heated storage units with a bathroom.  There is no overnight staying and no commercial activity allowed. The main purpose behind this concept is to  give people (locals or tourist/fishermen) the opportunity to store vehicles, boats, snowmobiles, ice castles…etc.  The units would be purchased individually, and would have strict covenants that would be enforced. A majority  would be rented and a few would be sold. Example covenants: cannot buy multiple and become a used car  dealer, cannot raise chickens, cannot fix the cars in there, non-commercial use, cannot stay overnight, there’s no  trash service/ dumpster, cannot park a vehicle outside a building overnight. Intends on getting a wetland  delineation as soon as possible and get on contractors lists as soon as possible to get everything else needed  done. Ownership structure would be like this: an LLC would own the land and the buildings, and then the  individuals would own a share of that building depending on the unit they purchase, this would not be done  through a common interest community (CIC) plat. The board then asked the applicant several questions and  posted a variety of scenarios. The board then moved onto the findings of fact and decision.  

Name of Applicant: GWE, LLC Date: March 1, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: The East½East½NW¼NE¼, Section Twenty-seven (27), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.27.12.010 

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 allow commercial activity consisting of up to six (6) multi-unit storage  buildings in a non-shoreland Rural Residential 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? Commercial development. 

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? See application. 

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? Topography and drainage won’t be affected. 

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. 

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

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? See as planned in application. 

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? Existing well and sewage system in application. 

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? Existing 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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? See application. 

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? No overnight parking allowed. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Wetland delineation needed. 

2. Driveway and roads to be approve by L/W County engineer for safety vehicle access. 3. CUP for applicant’s project and terminates in five (5) years if applicant has not constructed at least one (1)  unit from date of approval. 

4. No overnight habitation. 

5. Stormwater permit is needed, if 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 ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Tom/Marshall. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #23-03CU by Grant and Savanna Slick: A tract of land  located in Government Lot Two (2), Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 24.28.22.020. Applicant is requesting a  Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District. Rainy River is an agricultural river segment.  

Applicants, Grant and Savanna Slick, were present to discuss the request. The board had questions regarding the  size of the window openings and the number of carbon monoxide detectors. They also discussed the non compliant septic system on the property. They obtained a design for a new mound system and are also in  discussions with Anchor Bay and MPCA about getting a extension on the state permitted system. There is no  definitive date or even complete assurance that they will get approval. The board then moved onto the findings  of fact and decision.  

Name of Applicant: Grant and Savanna Slick Date: March 1, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land located in Government Lot Two (2), Section Twenty-eight (28),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 24.28.22.020 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning  District. Rainy River is an agricultural river segment. 

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? Commercial development corridor. 

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 ( ) 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? State Highway 172 NW and shared driveway. 

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

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

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? Design plan applied for. 

14) 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? ___________________________________________________________________________ 15) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? On site well and sewage system to be upgraded. 

16) 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? ___________________________________________________________________________ 18) 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? ___________________________________________________________________________ 19) 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? ___________________________________________________________________________ 20) 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? ___________________________________________________________________________ 21) 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? Adequate on-site parking. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. CUP terminates upon sale or transfer of property. 

2. Sewer system to be upgraded by July 8, 2024. 

3. Approval is contingent upon all other requirements per application. 

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 – Tom/Monica. All in favor.  

Motion to Adjourn at 8:40 PM- Marshall/Tom. All in favor.