7:00 P.M. on August 2, 2023 

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 12, 2023- Motion to approve- Tom/Wes. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #23-03V by Christopher and Dawn Eklund: A tract of land located in the  Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE¼SW¼) Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID # 19.21.34.040. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a  structure to be placed within the required seventy-five (75) foot setback of Lake of the Woods and less than  the required ten (10) foot lot line setback. This portion of Bostic Creek is considered Lake of the Woods, a  General Development Lake. 

Chris 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: Christopher and Dawn Eklund Date: August 2, 2023 Parcel #: 19.21.34.040 Variance Application #: 23-03V 

Project Request: Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure to be placed within the required seventy-five (75) foot  setback of Lake of the Woods and less than the required ten (10) foot lot line setback. 

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: 

Project Request: Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure to be placed within the required seventy-five (75) foot  setback of Lake of the Woods and less than the required ten (10) foot lot line setback. 

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 in a commercial zoning district. 

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. Same footprint. 

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? No change. 

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

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

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 the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED (X) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS ( ) DENIED ( ) 

Motion to Approve as submitted – Dave/Marshall. All in favor.  

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting – Tom/Wes. All in favor. 

Motion to open the Planning Commission – Marshall/Dave. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-12CU by Christopher and Dawn Eklund: A tract of  land located in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE¼SW¼) Section Twenty-one (21), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID # 19.21.34.040. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 6.3 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Floodplain  Ordinance to allow an alternative elevation method of the existing structure. This portion of Bostic Creek is  considered Lake of the Woods, a General Development Lake. 

Chris 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: Christopher and Dawn Eklund Date: August 2, 2023

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter  (SE1/4SW1/4) Section Twenty-one (21), Township One-hundred sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West – Parcel ID# 19.21.34.040. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 6.3 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Floodplain Ordinance to allow an alternative elevation method of the existing  structure. 

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 and residential. 

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

Why or why not? Structure stabilization. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Bostic Bay waterfront. 

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? No change. 

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Existing recreational cabin.

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? New sewer system to be installed. 

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of  the Zoning Ordinance? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change. 

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? New well and sewer 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 ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Private driveway. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1. Upgrading of well and septic system to be completed one year from approval. 

2. Lowest portion of the building must be at 1066.2 or higher. 

3. Meet all other applicable requirements per Lake of the Woods County Floodplain Ordinance. 

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 ( )

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-11CU by Jesse Mayfield and Steve Asplin: That  portion of Government Lot 9, Section Six (6), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West  (Gudrid) – Parcel ID# 31.06.44.020. 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 activity consisting of a storage building in a  non-shoreland Residential Development Zoning District (R1). 

Jesse and Steve 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: Jesse Mayfield and Steve Asplin Date: August 2, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: That portion of Gov. Lot 9 lying South and West of State Highway #11 and lying  South and East of County Road #35 in Section Six (6), Township One-hundred sixty (160) North, Range Thirty  (30) West – Parcel ID# 31.06.44.020. 

Project Proposal: Allow commercial activity consisting of a storage building in a non-shoreland Residential  Development Zoning District (R1). 

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? Development in area. 

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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? L/W County Road 35. 

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

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 ( ) 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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Onsite parking.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. CUP specific to this application only. 

2. No habitation. 

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 Adjourn at 7:42 PM- Tom/Marshall. All in favor.