Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on May 6, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Dave Marhula, Scott Head, Tom Mio and Ken Horntvedt. Reed McFarland attended via conference call. 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 agenda – M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: March 4, 2020 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – Old Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-03CU by J & L Hennum, Inc.: The  Vacated Plat of Jesme’s Addition to Riverview in Section Twenty-four (24), Township  One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial planned unit development  consisting of recreational vehicle camping park located in a Commercial Recreation  Zoning District. 

Greg Hennum attended the meeting by conference call and explained the request for a seasonal  campground.  

Mr. Mio opened up the meeting to questions from the board. Discussion then ensued between the  board and Mr. Hennum. Members of the board expressed concern over the placement of the  fence on the property line. Discussion then turned to the proposed dump station. 

Mio then opened the meeting up to public comment. Multiple letters from the public were read  into the record.  

Discussion between Mr. Hennum and the Commission ensued.  

Mr. Marhula made a motion to move on to the Findings of Facts. 

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: __J&L Hennum Inc_________________________ Date: _May 6, 2020_____ 

Location/Legal Description: The Vacated Plat of Jesme’s Addition to Riverview Section Twenty four (24), Township One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#:  19.51.00.010; 19.51.00.070; 19.51.00.180

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance operate Commercial Planned Unit Development in a Commercial Recreation 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? In a commercial district. 

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

( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Public sewer and private water and based upon density calculation. 

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 (X) NO  ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Larger trees to remain and will not change. 

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? Campsite lot parking – easy county road access. 

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

Why or why not? Commercial/recreational. 

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? Public sewer. 

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? Private well and public 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 (X) NO  ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Eight (8) foot high fence/ground up. 

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 (X) NO  ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? On site plan. 

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 camp sites. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) Fence to be off property line adequate for maintenance 

2) Must meet new density level (23) 

3) Approved for year-round use 

4) Must meet MDH requirements and approval

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 ( ) 

_____________________________________ 

Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.    

Motion to Approve the request with conditions: M/S/P Marhula/Head 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Final Plat Common Interest Community #4 A Planned  Community Eagle Ridge First Supplement: a 2.26-acre tract in the SE corner of  Government Lot Eight (8), Section One (1), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167)  North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Oak Island). Applicant is requesting to create six  (6) tracts to accompany the Sportsman’s Eagle Ridge Common Interest Community as  lots for storage. 

Greg Hennum then explained the request. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Hennum.  

Mr. Stromlund commented that the answers to the boards questions were answered by the  declarations. 

Motion to approve: M/S/P Mcfarlane/Marhula 

– Consideration of Preliminary Plat of Hooper Creek: A parcel of land located in  Government Lots (One) 1, (Five) 5, and (Six) 6 all within Section Eighteen (18),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West. Applicant is  requesting to create sixteen (16) tracts for a residential development. 

Jon Waibel then explained the request. 

Discussion ensued between the board and Mr. Waibel.  

Mr. Stromlund discussed the impacts of wetland on the proposed plat and the construction of the  road. He stated that the applicant was proposing a road that exceeded the requirements of the  ordinance. 

Mio then opened the meeting up to public comment. Multiple letters from the public were read  into the record. 

Motion to approve: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

With no further business, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:02pm.  Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt