Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on March 2, 2022 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Nancy  Dunnell, Ken Horntvedt, Marshall Nelson, Monica Dohmen, and Dave Marhula. Others present  were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund. Wes Johnson removed himself from  the Planning Commission for all requests due to the conflict of interest.  

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve agenda-Ken/Dave. All in favor.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 2, 2021- Motion to approve- Dave/Marshall. All in  favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment: No New Business  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-03CU by Lake Area Construction,  Inc.: SW ¼ NW ¼ in Section Twenty-five (25), Township One-hundred Sixty-one (161)  North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 22.25.23.000. Applicant is requesting a  Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of  aggregate mining in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).  

Rex Block was present to discuss the request. Landowner briefly described the ridge and  approximated about 10 acres of 18”-24” of usable material was located on the property. With no  other public correspondence, the commission moved onto the finding of fact.  

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? Aggregate mining. 

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 (X) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Will alter topography. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Vegetative cover to be removed, later replaced when pit closed. 

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( )  N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Private road? 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A  ( ) 

Why or why not? Isolated. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Natural 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 ( ) 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:  

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 (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) Approve as Presented – Dave/Nancy, All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-04CU by Weston Johnson: NE ¼ SW  ¼ -Parcel ID# 28.16.31.000, N ½ NW¼, Less Deeded, S ½ NW ¼ – Parcel ID#  28.16.21.000, and W ½ NE ¼ – Parcel ID# 28.16.12.000 in Section Sixteen (16),  Township One Hundred-Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive and commercial use of the property  consisting of aggregate mining, washing, and bituminous material, in a Rural Residential  Zoning District (R2).  

Wes Johnson was present to discuss the project. The land is primarily pasture land and once the  material is removed the land will be converted back to pasture land for animal grazing. A  neighbor was present and had some questions regarding where the material would be extracted  from.  

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? Aggregate mining. 

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 (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Removal of cover. 

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? Private road and County Road. 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( )  N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Farmland. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Natural vegetative breaks. 

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:  

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 (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) Approve as Presented- Dave/ Monica. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-05CU by Olson Construction, LLC.: NW ¼ NW ¼, Less the East 165.5’ in Section Twenty-three (23), Township One  Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West- Parcel ID# 28.23.22.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive and commercial use of  the property consisting of aggregate mining, washing, crushing, and bituminous material,  in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2). 

George Olson was present to discuss this request. The neighbor to this request had some  concerns that they presented. After discussion the commission moved to the findings of fact.  

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? Aggregate mining. 

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 (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Removal of vegetation cover and affects topography. 

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 roads two sides. 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( )  N/A ( ) 

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

Why or why not? Berms along County Road #3. 

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:  

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 (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) Approve as Presented- Ken/Monica. All in favor.  

Motion to Adjourn at 8:05PM – Dave/Nancy. All in favor.