7:00 P.M. on May 3, 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. Absent Member: 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, with changes to move the zoning and ssts ordinance discussions to the end  of the meeting–Tom/Wes. All in favor. 

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

Planning Commission – Old Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #23-04CU by Jason and Christina Draper: A tract of land  described as the West 330’ of the S2SE4SE4, Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-one  (161) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (McDougald), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 22.07.44.021. 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 vacation rental in a Rural  Residential (R2) Zoning District. 

Mr. and Mrs. Draper were present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed concerns regarding the septic system, egress windows, the wood stove heating,  and the well test results. The board then moved onto the findings of fact and decision.  

Name of Applicant: Jason and Christina Draper Date: May 3, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land described as the West 330’ of the S2SE4SE4, Section Seven (7),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 22.07.44.021. 

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 vacation rental in a Rural Residential (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? Rural Residential 

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

Why or why not? Application of permit process 

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) 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? Based on 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? Large enough area 

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 

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? On-site parking 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Dependent on sewer inspection and expansion 

2. CUP terminates upon sale or transfer of property 

3. All other requirements per application 

4. No rental until sewer inspection 

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/Wes. All in favor.  

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-05CU by Daniel 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 Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-two (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 902 of Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the 

shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of a rip rap project. This portion of Bostic  Creek is considered part of Lake of the Woods which is a General Development Lake. Mr. Crompton was present for the meeting to discuss the request with the board and answer any questions.  He discussed a brief history of the property and historic rip rap that has been done in the past, as well as  DNR permissions that he has already received for work below the Ordinary High Water-Level. The main  concern is shoreline protection, especially following the high water from the previous year. Dan Powers, a  concerned resident, had a few concerns that were discussed with the applicant and the board. The property  has several conditional use permits already granted that were discussed as well.  

Name of Applicant: Daniel Crompton Date: May 3, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: The South 500’ of the SE¼SW¼ lying westerly of Bostic Creek except that part lying  within Block 3, of Walleye Retreat Plat, in Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.21.34.071. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone Bostic  Bay of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of a rock riprap project. Lake of the Woods is a General Development  lake.  

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? Shoreline Protection 

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? Shoreline protection 

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? Remain the same 

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? Bostic Creek 

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? Based on DNR requirements 

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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Bostic Creek 

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?  

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?  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. CUP includes future maintenance 

2. Must follow DNR standards 

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/Wes. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Preliminary Plat of Hooper Creek West by Hooper Creek Investments, LLC: A  parcel of land located in Government Lot (One) 1 and (Five) 5, and that portion of the SE¼NW¼ lying  north of Highway 172, all within Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North,  Range Thirty-one (31) West (Baudette) Parcel ID# 24.18.12.010. Applicant is requesting to create eight  (8) tracts for a residential development. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment. Jon Waibel was present to discuss the preliminary plat and to answer any questions from the board.  

The Planning Commission recommended the combining of Lots 1 and 2 for buildability, access and lot area purposes.  There were also a few considerations from the Recorders Office and Highway Department that were mentioned and  discussed.  

Motion to approve- Tom/Wes. All in favor.  

Planning Commission – Old Business 

– Consideration of Amendments to the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. Discussion topics include Short Term Vacation Rental criteria/new section, new density criteria, and  considerations around septic compliance inspections upon sale or transfer of property.  

– Update on the Draft Amendments to the Lake of the Woods County SSTS Ordinance. Recommended approval once MPCA variance decision is made regarding empty tank criteria for inspections in remote/  hard to access areas (Angle Inlet, Islands, private property with no public access roads…etc.).  

Motion to Adjourn at 9:58 PM- Tom/Monica. All in favor.