Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting

7:00 P.M. on May 1, 2024

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Wes Johnson and Marshall Nelson. Others present were Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund. Monica Dohmen and Nancy Dunnell were absent.
Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Johnson. All in favor.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 7, 2024- Motion to approve – Marhula/Nelson. All in favor.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.
Planning Commission – New Business

• Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-01CU by Loren and Dawn Horner: A parcel of land lying in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE1⁄4NE1⁄4) of Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North of Range Thirty-two (32) West and Government Lot One (1), Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North of Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#’s 24.07.22.010 and 23.12.11.010. 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 for the purpose of a rock rip rap project to stabilize the shoreline.

Loren Horner 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.

Name of Applicant: Loren Horner Date: May 1, 2024

Location/Legal Description: A parcel of land lying in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE1⁄4NE1⁄4) of Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North of Range Thirty-two (32) West and Government Lot One (1), Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North of Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#’s 24.07.22.010 and 23.12.11.010. 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 for the purpose of a rock rip rap project to stabilize the shoreline.

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 stabilization

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 stabilization

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? Rainy River shoreline

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? Rural Residential

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

YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Rainy River shoreline

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: DNR permit needed if it becomes required.
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 ( )
May 1, 2024 _________________________
Date Ken Horntvedt

Chair, Planning Commission
Motion made by Mio to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Johnson. All in favor,
motion carried.

• Consideration of Amendments to the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.
  Group discussion regarding proposed changes to the ordinance, mainly around new language about feedlot
  setbacks.
  Motion to move ordinance to the Board of Commissioners for approval. Marshall/Mio. All in favor, motion
  carried
  With no further business before the Planning Commission, Marhula made a motion to adjourn and seconded by
  Mio. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:27 PM.