7:00 P.M. on July 12, 2023 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Marshall Nelson, Ken Horntvedt, Nancy Dunnell and Dave Marhula. Absent Member: Monica Dohmen and Wes Johnson. 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–Marshall/Dave. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 7, 2023- Motion to approve- Dave/Tom. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

Consideration of Conditional Use Application #23-08CU by Gary and Barbara Hokanson: A tract of land  in Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34)  West (Lakewood) – Parcel ID# 14.05.31.060. 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) cubic yards of  material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development lake. 

Gary and Barb Hokanson were present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact  and decision.  

Name of Applicant: Gary and Barbara Hokanson Date: July 12, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One Hundred  Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West (Lakewood) – Parcel ID# 14.05.31.060 

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) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage. 

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? No change. 

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? Shoreline of LOW. 

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 ( ) 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? Shoreline. 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? No change. 

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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

If all answers to the Findings of Fact-Criteria are either “Yes” or are “Not Applicable” to the request, the  criteria for granting the conditional use permit have been met. The conditional use permit will maintain the  goals of safety, health, and general welfare of the public.  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: None 

Approved as Presented (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Marshall/Tom. All in favor.  

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-09CU by William and Tamara Yon: Lot 2,  Block 1, Driftwood Acres, Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one  (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID# 24.64.01.020. 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) cubic yards of  material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River to repair shoreline damage. The Rainy River is an  Agricultural River Segment. 

William Yon was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board  discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

Name of Applicant: William and Tamara Yon Date: July 12, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, Driftwood Acres, Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred  Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID# 24.64.01.020 

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) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of the Rainy River to repair shoreline damage. 

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? Will not 

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? Shoreline Protection 

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? Per DNR Rip Rap plans 

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? No Change 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? 

YES ( X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Reason for application 

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. Meet the Department of Natural Resources requirements for rip rap. 

2. Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Measures 

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/Nancy. All in favor.  

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-10CU by Kurt and Dianna Kluzak: A tract of  land in Government Lot 3, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range  Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.25.31.111. 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 vacation  rental in a Rural Residential (R1) Zoning District. 

Kurt and Dianna Kluzak were present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed the information in the application. Kurt noted that they only plan to rent to a  maximum number of 4 people for a VRBO. Estimate is 140’ of drain-field in the ground as per Kurt. The board  then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

Name of Applicant: Kurt and Diana Kluzak Date: July 12, 2023  

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Government Lot 3, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.25.31.111 

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 vacation rental in a Rural Residential (R1) 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? Recreational 

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

Why or why not? Will meet county requirements for short term rental

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? Riverview Drive 

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

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? With Conditions 

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 Treatment System 

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 (X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Adequate Parking 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

• Maximum occupancy to be based on septic system size 

• Follow Short Term Rental requirements as per submitted application 

• Approval terminates upon sale or transfer of property 

• Meet Department of Health Guidelines 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.  

Motion to close the Planning Commission: Marshall/Nancy. All in favor. 

Motion to open the Board of Adjustment: Nancy/Dave. All in favor. 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

Consideration of Variance #23-01V by Paul Colson: The North 346 feet of the East Half of the Northwest  Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (E1/2NW1/4SW1/4), Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred  Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West (Angle), Except the Easterly 30 feet of said  E1/2NW1/4SW1/4 – Parcel ID # 02.29.32.030. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 502.2 of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to create five (5) lots less than the minimum width of 150 feet for  non-riparian lots within the shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development  lake. 

Karen and Paul Colson joined the meeting via phone call to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact  and decision. 

Name of Applicant: Paul Colson Date: July 12, 2023 Parcel #: 02.29.32.000 Variance Application #: 23-01V 

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? Recreational Development 

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 

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? 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 remain the same 

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

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

Condition(s):  

• Survey of lots to be completed 

• Every structure to be built to a minimum elevation of 1066.2 (88 Datum) to top of slab 

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 ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X ) DENIED ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Dave/Marshall. All in favor.  

Consideration of Variance #23-02V by Adrian’s Resort: A 3.43-acre tract in Government Lot Three (3),  Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West  (Wheeler) – Parcel ID #19.24.41.020. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.5 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the applicant to replace an existing non-conforming cabin with a  new cabin at less than the required setback of one-hundred (100) feet from the Ordinary High-Water Mark of  the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment. 

Brian Ney was present to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the  information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

Name of Applicant: Adrian’s Resort Date: July 12, 2023

Parcel #: 19.24.41.020 Variance Application #: 23-02V 

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? Resort Development 

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? Shoreland location, early development 

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

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

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change 

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

YES ( X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot location, structure’s age 

Condition(s):  

• No closer than line of site to the Rainy River 

• Size of cabin to be built to the size and location as presented in the application 

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 ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS ( X) DENIED ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Dave/Marshall. All in favor.  

Consideration of Administrative Appeal #23-01A by Derek and Britny Johnson and Sharon and Paul  Sayler: Lots 21 and 22, Wabanica Beaches Subdivision, Section Twelve (12), Township One-Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID # 23.51.00.210. Applicant is appealing an  administrative order requiring the applicant to adhere to the conditions placed upon granting Variance #20-07  by the Board of Adjustments. 

Derek Johnson was present to discuss the appeal and answer question from the board of adjustment. Derek  stated that the scope of the project changed and he’d like to come to a new resolution to get around having to  build a mound system. Derek stated that for financial reasons, they didn’t move ahead with a two-story garage  and went with attic trusses instead for storage. Derek suggested turning the septic tank into a holding tank. 

Derek doesn’t want to deal with the back lot for a septic system as he feels it is wetlands. Derek decided to sell  the back lot instead. Derek was reminded that there was an agreement in place prior to rebuilding the garage  that he isn’t fulfilling. Tom reminded Derek that just the idea of rebuilding a garage would still have triggered  the need to update the current septic system. The two-story garage was not the trigger for the septic upgrade, the  building of the garage at all was the trigger. The board noted that a holding tank is not an option due to having a  well on the property. Derek noted the home is a three bedroom. An option is to repurchase the back lot that was  illegally sold as a non-conforming lot. 

Tom made a motion to deny the appeal request and to upgrade the septic system as agreed upon by December  31, 2024. Motion seconded by Marshall. 

Tom suggested the board consider adjusting the time for lot viewals to 3PM due to growing number of requests  requiring a lot viewal. 

Motion to Adjourn at 8:45 PM- Tom/Nancy. All in favor.