Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on November 4, 2020 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Reed  McFarland, Ken Horntvedt, and Marshall Nelson (by phone). The following members were absent:  Wes Johnson and Dave Marhula. 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/McFarlane 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 7, 2020 – M/S/P McFarlane/Horntvedt 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-07CU by Ryan Kerr, Dennis King,  and Sunset Lodge, LLC: Tracts of land in Government Lot 3, Section Two (2),  Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, and Range Thirty-Three (33) West, Parcel IDs# 06.02.14.040, 06.02.14.030 and 06.02.14.020. Applicants are requesting  a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to allow the movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards  of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of  repairing shoreline damage. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Mr. Stromlund explained that the applicants would like to place riprap along their shoreline to protect  from further erosion. The applicants were not present at the meeting but Mr. Stromlund explained  that if the Commission had questions, the applicants would be available for a conference call. The  Planning Commission discussed the application and determined they had enough information that  they did need to call the applicant. 

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Board moved on to the  Findings of Facts. 

Name of Applicant: Ryan Kerr; Dennis King; Sunset Lodge LLC_ Date: Nov. 4, 2020 

Location/Legal Description: The North ½ of the South ½ of the South ½ of Government Lot 3; the  North 115’ of the South 165’ of Government Lot 3; The South ½ of the North ½ of the South ½ of  Government Lot 3, Section Two (2), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty three (33) West – Parcel IDs# 06.02.14.030; 06.12.14.040; 06.02.14.020. 

Project Proposal: Place more than 10 cubic yards of material in the shore impact zone of Lake of the  Woods for the purpose of rip-rap. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

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 repair and 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? Saves shoreline. 

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/stops erosion. 

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? ______________________________________________________ 

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

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Saves 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: None 

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 ( ) Motion to approve as presented: M/S/P Nelson/Horntvedt 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-08V by Kristine Hawkins: Lot 2,  Block 1, Harris Addition, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 19.63.01.020. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow movement of more than ten (10) cubic  yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose  of repairing shoreline damage. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Mr. Stromlund explained that the applicants would like to place riprap along their shoreline to protect  from further erosion. The applicants were not present at the meeting but Mr. Stromlund explained  that if the Commission had questions, the applicants would be available for a conference call. The  Planning Commission discussed the application and determined they had enough information that  they did need to call the applicant. 

Mio asked if there was any more discussion, with no further discussion the Board moved on to the  Findings of Facts. 

Name of Applicant: __Kristine Hawkins______________ Date: _Nov. 4, 2020 

Location/Legal Description: _Lot 2 Block 1 Harris Addition, Section Nineteen (19), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 19.63.01.020.

Project Proposal: Place more than 10 cubic yards of material in the shore impact zone of Lake of the  Woods for the purpose of rip-rap. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

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? Saves shoreline. 

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? ______________________________________________________ 

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

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Shoreline stabilization. 

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: None 

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 ( ) Motion to approve with conditions: M/S/P McFarlane/Horntvedt 

– Consideration of an Extension for Final Plat Submittal 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 an extension of up to nine (9) months for  submittal of Final Plat in accordance with Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance.  

Mr. Stromlund explained that Hooper Creek Development would like an extension beyond their 9  months to submit their Final Plat. The Planning Commission discussed an extension of 9 months. 

Motion to approve an extension of 9 months: M/S/P McFarlane/Nelson 

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:22 p.m. Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/McFarlane