November 2, 2022

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

7:00 P.M. on November 2, 2022 

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 5, 2022- Motion to approve- Marshall/Dave. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – Old Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-14CU by Blue Line Consulting, LLC: The  NW¼NW¼, Section Nine (9), Township One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID # 17.09.22.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required  by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a Short-Term  Vacation Rental in a Rural Residential Development (R2) Zoning District. 

David Hahn was present to discuss this request with the board and to answer any questions. Tom Mio asked for  clarification about window type being sliders. A suggestion about adding an exterior stairway for the 2nd floor in the event  of a fire was deemed a good idea by David. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.  

Name of Applicant: Blue Line Consulting, LLC (David Hahn) Date: November 15, 2022 Location/Legal Description: NW¼NW¼, Section 9, T. 162N, R. 34W – Parcel ID # 17.09.22.000 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a Short-Term Vacation Rental in a Rural Residential Development (R2)  Zoning 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? Rural Residential development. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Access via 44th Street NW. 

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 ( ) 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? Sized for a 5-bedroom dwelling. 

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 septic. 

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? Not necessary. 

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? Not planned or needed. 

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-site parking. 

If all answers to the Findings of Fact-Criteria are either “Yes” or are “Not Applicable” to the request, the criteria for  granting the conditional use permit have been met. The conditional use permit will maintain the goals of safety,  health, and general welfare of the public.  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. The Conditional Use Permit terminates upon sale or transfer of the property. 

2. Quiet time from 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. 

3. Must post local contact information in the dwelling. 

4. Must meet Minnesota Department of Health regulations. 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Dave/Marshall. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-15CU by Dale and Connie Peterson: A tract in  the Northeast Corner of Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One hundred Sixty-three  (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID # 14.05.31.010. Applicant is requesting a  Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to construct an inland harbor connected to Lake of the Woods and to cumulatively move  more than the allowed amounts of material within and outside of the shore impact zone. Lake of the  Woods is a General Development Lake.

Dale and Connie Peterson were present to discuss their request with the board. Dale noted they are building a harbor and a  berm to enhance and protect their property from high water events. Permits from DNR and Army Corp are all presently in  order. The harbor will allow for 13 total slips. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.  

Name of Applicant: Dale and Connie Peterson Date: November 2, 2022 

Location/Legal Description: A tract in the Northeast Corner of Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One  hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID # 14.05.31.010 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct an inland harbor connected to Lake of the Woods and to cumulatively  move more than the allowed amounts of material within and outside of the shore impact zone. 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? Resort development, additional safe harbor. 

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? Oversight by DNR and Corps of Engineers, permits all in place. 

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? They will be affected but has been permitted. 

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? Shoreline of Lake of the Woods. 

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? Via DNR and Corps permits and design. 

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Access via County Road 17. 

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

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

Why or why not? Creation of a safe harbor. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Campsite boats are already using lake and permit limits number of slips in harbor.

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 (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? None needed. 

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 (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? None needed. 

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? No new traffic. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Follow permit designs. 

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 Condition (X) Denied ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions – Ken/Wes. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-16CU by Stacey Manning: Lot 1, Block 3 River  Oaks Plat, Section One (1), Township One hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West — Parcel ID# 23.52.03.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a Short-Term  

Vacation Rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District within the shoreland area of the  Rainy River. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment. 

Stacey and Connie Manning were present to discuss the request with the board. Stacey explained the need for a garage for  their own storage caused them to buy an adjoining property with an existing garage and a trailer home. This sparked the  opportunity to add short term rental to that new parcel. The condition of the existing septic system was questioned. The  existing system is no longer up to current requirements. Stacey noted it as a 3-bedroom trailer home. Upgrading the septic  system was discussed. A letter was read into the minutes from a John and Deb Copp in opposition to the request. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.  

Name of Applicant: Stacey and Connie Manning Date: November 2, 2022 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 3, River Oaks Plat in Section 1, T. 161N, R. 32W – Parcel ID #  23.52.03.010 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a Short-Term Vacation Rental in a Residential Development (R1)  Zoning 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? Within the growth corridor, vacation rental. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Access via Oak Harbor Drive. 

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 ( ) 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? But needs to be upgraded. 

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 septic 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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? On-site parking. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Septic must be upgraded within 2 years from September 20, 2022. 

2. CUP terminates upon sale or transfer. 

3. No on street parking. 

4. Must list local contacts and emergency numbers. 

5. Must follow tenant rules listed in application. 

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 Approve with Conditions – Dave/Nancy. All in favor.  

Motion to Adjourn at 7:46 PM- Monica/Marshall. All in favor. 

October 5, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on October 5, 2022 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Nancy Dunnell, Ken Horntvedt, Wes Johnson, Marshall Nelson, and Dave Marhula. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh  Stromlund. Absent from the meeting was Monica Dohmen.  

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. 

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve –Dave/Ken. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 7, 2022- Motion to approve- Marshall/Dave. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – Old Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-11CU by Milo Ravndalen: The SE¼SE¼ of Section  Twenty (20); the NE¼NE¼ of Section Twenty-nine (29); the NW¼NW¼ of Section Twenty-eight (28); the  SW¼SW¼ of Section Twenty-one (21) all within Township One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range  Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID#’s 17.20.41.000; 17.29.11.000; 17.28.22.000; 17.21.33.000. 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, washing,  and bituminous material, in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2). 

Milo Ravndalen was present to discuss this request with the board and to answer any questions. Neighbors Rory and Julie  Hodgson had concerns in regards to safety, speed limits, signage, dust control, hours of operations and the crushing  operation. County Engineer, Anthony Pirkl, was also present to discuss the road concerns as well as dust control options  for the landowner. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.  

Name of Applicant: Milo Ravndalen Date: October 5, 2022 

Location/Legal Description: The SE¼SE¼ Section 20, NE¼NE¼ of Section 29, NW¼NW ¼ of Section 28, and the SW¼SW¼ of  Section 21, all within Township 162N, Range 34W (Chilgren) 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting 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). 

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 development. 

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? It will affect topography through mining. 

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 Road 56. 

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

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 (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Will be required if installed. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Via County Road 56. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1. Must maintain dust control. 

2. Hours limited to daylight hours. 

3. Must follow proper blasting procedures including notification of residents. 

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 Approve with Conditions – Marshall/Ken. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-12CU by Brandon and Alycia Fish: Lot 8, Block 1 of  Lukes Estates in Section Twenty-four (24), Township One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two  (32) West – Parcel ID # 19.58.01.080. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term transient rental in a  Residential Development (R1) Zoning District. 

Brandon and Alycia Fish were present to discuss their request with the board. This request was first discussed at the  September 7th, 2022 meeting but the request had a few deficiencies that the board wanted the applicants to address. The  applicants addressed these concerns with new egress windows and routes created/updated in the property. The Board  moved onto Findings of Fact and Decision.  

Name of Applicant: Brandon and Alycia Fish Date: October 5, 2022 Location/Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 1, Lukes in Section 24, T. 162N, R. 32W 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to allow the operation of a short-term transient rental in a 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? Housing in growth corridor. 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare?

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Meets county’s new application/requirements. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Access on Burr Oak Road 

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

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? On sanitary sewer district. 

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? Sewer district and private well. 

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? Parking on site only. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1. Parking on site only, no parking on Burr Oak Road. 

2. CUP terminates on transfer of title. 

3. Hours of operation are as listed on application. 

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 Approve with Conditions – Wes/Dave. All in favor. 

Motion to Close Planning Commission – Open Board of Adjustment- Marshall/Nancy. All in favor.  Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #22-09V by Michael and Robin Derkacht: A Tract located in the SE¼SW¼  lying Westerly of the South Branch of the Rapid River in Section Seventeen (17), Township One-hundred  Fifty-eight (158) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 43.17.23.000. Applicant is requesting a  variance from Section 503.4 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure at less  than the required one hundred fifty (150) foot setback from the South Branch of the Rapid River. The South  Branch of the Rapid River is a Forested River Segment. 

Robin and Michael Derkacht were present to discuss the request with the board. Neighbors Gerald (Jerry) and Iva  Balitewicz were present to ask questions in regards the request. The board recognized an email correspondence between  an adjoining neighbor across the river and an employee of the LWPO. The Board moved onto Findings of Fact and  Decision.  

Name of Applicant: Michael and Robin Derkacht Date: October 5, 2022 Parcel #: 43.17.23.000 Variance Application #: 22-09V 

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:

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? New structure no closer to Rapid River than current structure.

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? Replaces existing house/residential. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location of current house, well and other considerations. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Current structure. 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? It will not/no change. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? House replacement. 

Condition(s): No closer to Rapid River than 125 feet. 

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 Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

Motion to Approve with Conditions – Marshall/Ken. All in favor.  

Motion to Adjourn at 8:00 PM- Marshall/ Dave. All in favor. 

September 7, 2022

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

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Nancy Dunnell, Ken Horntvedt, Monica  Dohmen, Marshall Nelson, and Dave Marhula. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund. Absent from  the meeting was Wes Johnson 

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. 

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve –Marshall/Dave. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 3, 2022- Motion to approve- Dave /Ken. All in favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Monica noted a conflict for Casey and Colleen Hill. 

Board of Adjustments: New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #22-07V by Bayview Lodge of Baudette, LLC: Lot 31, Wabanica  Beaches Subdivision in Section Twelve (12), Township One-hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range  Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 23.51.00.310. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section  503.6 of the Lake of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow a structure that will not meet the  required fifty (50) foot setback from the right-of-way from State Highway 172. Wabanica Creek is a  Tributary River segment. 

Randee explained that they were replacing an existing cabin with a newer one to be located approximately 1 foot further from Hwy  172 than the previous cabin. Tom noted that a letter was received from MNDOT noting no concern for the cabin(s) as long as it  remained outside of their right of way. No concerns were noted from the audience. Marhula recommended that they go to the Findings  of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Bayview Lodge of Baudette, LLC Date: September 7, 2022 Parcel #: 23.51.00.310 Variance Application #: 22-07V 

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: 

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? Commercial cabin replacement. 

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? Cabin rental. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Placement of prior cabins. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Right of way. 

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? Right of way considerations.

Condition(s): This ruling shall apply to replacement of any cabins legally described that do not meet setback requirements of  State Highway 172. 

IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE HAVE BEEN  MET. 

Motion by Marhula to approve, with conditions, the request for a variance. 

The motion was 2nd by Horntvedt, all in favor. Motion passes. 

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 Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

September 7, 2022 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

– Consideration of Variance #22-08V by Casey and Colleen Hill: A 4.27-acre tract in Government  Lot 2 Section Eight (8), Township One-hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West – Parcel  ID# 31.08.12.030. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.7 of the Lake of the Woods  Zoning Ordinance, to allow a structure that will not meet the required fifty (50) foot setback from the  right-of-way from State Highway 11. 

Reed McFarlane spoke for the Hill family explaining that they needed room for horses when they purchased the  land and placed a building in the NW corner to best block prevailing winds. Nelson noted that the building is  moveable although obviously not easily due to the shape and open side of the building. Mio noted that MNDOT  is ok with the building as long as it does not encroach on the right of way. Marhula recommended they move to  the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Casey and Colleen Hill Date: September 7, 2022 Parcel #: 31.08.12.030 Variance Application #: 22-08V 

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: 

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? Livestock protection. 

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? Livestock protection/horses. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Property layout.

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Property layout. 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Will not change. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Property layout. 

Condition(s): No further structures within Right-of-Way setback will be allowed. 

Motion by Marhula to approve, with conditions, the request for a variance. 

The motion was 2nd by Horntvedt, all in favor. Dohmen abstained. Motion passes. Building permit is still required by the Hill  family. 

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 Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

September 7, 2022 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion by Nelson to close the Board of Adjustment and open the Planning Commission. Horntvedt 2nd. All in favor. Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-05ZC by Long Point Association: A tract of land located in  Government Lot Five (5), Section Thirty-six (36), Township One-hundred Sixty-four (164) North,  Range Thirty-four (34) West. Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by Section 1206. The amendment would change  the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a Rural Residential (R2)  Zoning District for the purposes of continued development of the property. 

Earl and Mary Jean Anderson explained that the original members never thought the back lots would ever get  developed which isn’t how things worked out and there are now 23 garages on back lots. Therefore, the  association would like to change the zoning to match the current activity on the property. The association does  not allow any living quarters on any of the backlots according to the current bylaws. The new line would align  with the road to the South of the backlots. The remaining land is to remain within the current Special Protection  zoning. 

Horntvedt recommended they go to the findings of fact.

Name of Applicant: Long Point Association, Inc. Date: September 7, 2022 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land within Government Lot Five (5), Section Thirty-six (36),  Township One hundred Sixty-four (164) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West 

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection Proposed: Rural Residential (R2) Parcel Number(s): 13.36.41.000 through 13.36.41.251 Application Number: 22-05ZC 

The Planning Commission shall consider all facts from all sources prior to submitting a recommendation to the  County Board relating to a proposed zone change. Its judgment shall be based upon, but not limited to the  following factors as applicable. 

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? X Yes ___No 

Comments: Recreational recreation area. 

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification? X Yes ___No 

Comments: Residential. 

3. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood? 

___Yes X No 

Comments: No change. 

4. Is there a potential for public health, safety or traffic generation impacts based on the proposed  zone change and how will they be addressed? ___Yes X No Comments: No change. 

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to  accommodate the proposal? ___Yes X No Comments: No change. 

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement of surrounding  property for uses permitted in the zoning district? ___Yes X No

Comments: No change. 

7. Has there been a change in the development in the general area of the property in questions? X Yes ___No 

Comments: Expansion into a Special Protection Zone over many years. 

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood? ___Yes X No 

Comments: No change. 

Conditions:  

Motion to approve by Horntvedt, 2nd by Marhula, all in favor. Motion passes. 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods  County Board of Commissioners adopt the above findings and DENY / APPROVE the application for a  zone change be WITH / WITHOUT conditions. 

 September 7, 2022 ____________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning Commission 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-11CU by Milo Ravndalen: The SE¼SE¼ of  Section Twenty (20); the NE¼NE¼ of Section Twenty-nine (29); the NW¼NW¼ of Section  Twenty-eight (28); the SW¼SW¼ of Section Twenty-one (21) all within Township One-hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID#’s 17.20.41.000; 17.29.11.000;  17.28.22.000; 17.21.33.000. 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, washing, and bituminous material, in a Rural  Residential Zoning District (R2). 

Conditional Use Request 22-11CU was tabled due to no representative being at the meeting and opposition to the request.  Walter Kolodziej expressed concern about ruts on the road currently due to road design. Their concern is what heavy  equipment will do to the road. Walter also expressed concern about noise, dust and additional traffic. Next meeting date is  October 5, 2022. Motion to table came from Marhula, 2nd by Nelson. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-12CU by Brandon and Alycia Fish: Lot 8, Block  1 of Lukes Estates in Section Twenty-four (24), Township One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID # 19.58.01.080. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use 

Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate  a short-term transient rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District. 

Brandon explained the need for short term rental business in the area. Mio pointed out that there are no egress  windows in any of the rental bedrooms. Mio also noted a need to travel through a utility room to be able to exit  the building in an emergency as a concern to expect a client to understand that. The current layout of the  building is deemed too dangerous to allow short term rental business without changes. Mio suggested the  request be tabled until egress issues can be addressed as well as proper travel through the building in the event  of an emergency.  

Two letters regarding the short-term rental were read into the minutes from Shawn Rojeski and Tom & Pam  Ford. Steve and Beverly Barcell expressed concerns about the driveway location with their desire to place a  fence between their property and the Fish property. The driveway issue is a property owner issue to be resolved  between the property owners. Stromlund explained the process of withdrawing their request or waiving the  decision-making deadline until there is time to make requested adjustments to the property. Nelson moved to  table the application, 2nd by Dunnell. All in favor. Stromlund will follow up with a letter request to withdraw the  decision-making deadline. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-13CU by Janelle and Shawn Reed: Lots 4 and 5,  Block 1 of Himberg Estates in Section Ten (10), Township One-hundred Sixty (160) North, Range  Thirty (30) West –Parcel ID#31.54.01.040. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as  required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to use a Recreational  Vehicle (RV) in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District on Rainy River. Rainy River is an  Agricultural River segment.  

Janelle Reed explained her desire to leave a camper on their land so that it’s more convenient to visit without  needing to haul their camper each time. Their long-term desire is to build a cabin on the land. There is no well  on the land. Reed’s carry their black water home with them at present. Nelson motioned that they move to the  findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Shawn and Janelle Reed Date: September 7, 2022 Location/Legal Description: Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Himberg Estates in Section 10, T. 160N, R. 30W 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to allow placement of a recreational vehicle within the shoreland area  of the Rainy River. 

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? Allows recreational activity. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Access to Highway 11. 

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

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? Portable holding tank. 

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? Well screened. 

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? On site for parking. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1. Seven (7) year sunset on Conditional Use Permit (1/1/2030). 

Nelson motioned to approve with conditions, 2nd by Dohmen. All in favor. 

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 ( ) 

 September 7, 2022 _____________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

– Consideration of Lake of the Woods County Floodplain Ordinance 

o Floodplain Ordinance 

Josh explained the need for a floodplain ordinance in order to allow for floodplain insurance after October 2022. A generic version  was handed out with the intent to adjust to fit local county needs. 2.118: Critical facilities are recommended for removal from the  ordinance. All in favor. 2.130: light duty trucks was ok’d for removal. 2.139: Repetitive loss recommended for language change to be  more clear on damage value definitions for market value versus estimated market value. Market value depends on what business  you’re in. Recommendation is to work with the Assessor’s office to define “value”. OK to leave language as is for now.  Section 3.0 Jurisdiction and Districts is slated to begin using Beacon to determine location replacing old paper maps. 4.33 to be  removed as we do not have any such facilities. 5.15 to remove wording about CUP as it’s already required in the Zoning Ordinance.  5.16 recommended to remain in ordinance. 5.25 to be removed. 5.26 to remain. 5.31 to remain. 5.32 to remain. 5.41 & 5.42 to remain. Adjustments to language in 6.22.B.3. 6.24: Fill language to remain. 6.25 to be removed.6.26 to be questioned further by Josh. 6.32 to  remain. 6.42 to remain. 7.42.B to remain. 11.25 & 11.26 to remain. 11.32 and 11.33 to remain. 12.23 to remain. 

Next step is to present adjusted floodplain ordinance to the board of commissioners for approval as early as September 13, 2022. The  ordinance needs to be adopted prior to October 27. Motion by Dohmen to approve as noted, 2nd by Dunnell. All in favor. 

Motion to Adjourn at 9:42 PM- Horntvedt/Dunnell. All in favor. 

August 3, 2022

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

7:00 P.M. on August 3, 2022 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Nancy Dunnell, Ken Horntvedt, Monica  Dohmen, Wes Johnson, Marshall Nelson, 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 –Ken/Monica. All in favor. Changed order 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 6, 2022- Motion to approve- Dave /Nancy. All in favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-04ZC by Nels Holte: Government Lot Three (3), Section Seventeen (17), Township  One hundred Sixty-two North (162), Range Thirty-two West (32) with Parcel ID# 19.17.24.010. Applicant is requesting an  amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by Section 1206. The amendment  would change the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning  District for the purposes of continued development of the property.  

Mr. Holte explained the need for the zone change request due to previous development that occurred on the property decades ago. He  is proposing to have an attached garage to the current structure. 

Name of Applicant: Nels Holte Date: August 3, 2022 Location/Legal Description: Government Lot 3 Section 17, T. 162N, R. 32W 

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection (SP) Proposed: Rural Residential (R2) Parcel Number(s): 19.17.24.010 Application Number: 22-04ZC 

The Planning Commission shall consider all facts from all sources prior to submitting a recommendation to the County Board relating  to a proposed zone change. Its judgment shall be based upon, but not limited to the following factors as applicable. 

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? X Yes ___No Comments: Currently residential 

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification? X Yes ___No Comments: Additional residential in area 

3. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

4. Is there a potential for public health, safety or traffic generation impacts based on the proposed zone change and how  will they be addressed?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the  proposal?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses  permitted in the zoning district?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

7. Has there been a change in the development in the general area of the property in questions?___Yes X No Comments: No change 

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood?___Yes X No Comments: No change 

Conditions: Homeowner should consider a permanent ring dike/rip rap/breakwater to encircle  structure and septic system 

Motion by Horntvedt to approve, with conditions, the request zone change by Holte. 

The motion was 2nd by Marhula, all in favor. Motion passes. 

– Consideration of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance Revisions 

o Articles X – XI (Ten – Eleven) 

Stromlund discussed upcoming need to get Floodplain Ordinance approved prior to October 27 in order for homeowners to be  able to continue getting flood insurance. Articles 10 – 11 of the Zoning Ordinance were discussed including minor changes in  order to simplify reading of the ordinance. Sections 101-107 had no questions from the group. Section 108 has minor tweaking  regarding conveying property. Administrative and Minor Subdivision language was mentioned. Recording of surveys within a  

given timeframe was discussed as there are several old surveys that never got recorded that people try to convey and can’t.  Timeframe was suggested as one year. Discussion was stopped as the Hayden party joined the meeting. 

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-01ZC by Jennice Hayden: Southwest quarter (¼) of the Northeast quarter (¼) in  Section Seven (7), Township One-hundred sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West- Parcel ID# 06.07.13.000.  Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by  Section 1206. The amendment would change the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a  Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing a permanent structure to be located on the property for  residential purposes.  

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-02ZC by Jennice Hayden: Southeast quarter (¼) of the Northwest quarter (¼) in  Section Seven (7), Township One-hundred sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West- Parcel ID# 06.07.24.000.  Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by  Section 1206. The amendment would change the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a  Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing a permanent structure to be located on the property for  residential purposes. 

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-03ZC by Jennice Hayden: Southwest quarter (¼) of the Northwest quarter (¼) in  Section Seven (7), Township One-hundred sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West- Parcel ID# 06.07.23.000. 

Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by  Section 1206. The amendment would change the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a  Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing a permanent structure to be located on the property for  residential purposes.  

Mrs. Hayden described the property and how she hopes to add several small cabins for her children to be able to visit. Access to the  property would be from the Allen Trail. Logging trails are common in the angle and Hayden has no concerns about future access to  the property as old logging trails are sufficient. The Hayden’s had hired the DNR to accompany them to the property in order to assess  the land. Their initial plans are for a two-story cabin and then spread out from there. Marhula recommended that the Planning  Commission only allow a zone change on one parcel at a time which has historically been done and the Hayden family agreed it  should be the parcel furthest to the west. Marhula recommended the group move to the findings of fact on that particular parcel. The Planning Commission decided to do the findings in the order of: 22-03ZC, 22-02ZC and then 22-01ZC. 

Name of Applicant: Jennice Hayden Date: August 3, 2022 Location/Legal Description: SW¼NW¼ Section 7, T. 167N, R. 33W 

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection (SP) Proposed: Rural Residential (R2) 

Parcel Number(s): 06.07.23.000 Application Number: 22-03ZC 

The Planning Commission shall consider all facts from all sources prior to submitting a recommendation to the County Board relating  to a proposed zone change. Its judgment shall be based upon, but not limited to the following factors as applicable. 

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? X Yes ___No Comments: Recreational use 

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification?X Yes ___No Comments: Mostly state land and tribal land 

3. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood?___Yes X No 

Comments: Limited residential use 

4. Is there a potential for public health, safety or traffic generation impacts based on the proposed zone change and how  will they be addressed?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the  proposal?___Yes X No 

Comments: None 

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses  permitted in the zoning district?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

7. Has there been a change in the development in the general area of the property in questions?___Yes X No Comments: None

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood?___Yes X No Comments: No change 

Conditions:

1) All buildings must follow all property setbacks 

2) Any septic system must be approved 

Motion by Dohmen to approve, with conditions, the request zone change by Holte. 

The motion was 2nd by Marhula, all in favor. Motion passes. 

Name of Applicant: Jennice Hayden Date: August 3, 2022 Location/Legal Description: SE¼NW¼ Section 7, T. 167N, R. 33W 

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection (SP) Proposed: Rural Residential (R2) 

Parcel Number(s): 06.07.24.000 Application Number: 22-02ZC 

The Planning Commission shall consider all facts from all sources prior to submitting a recommendation to the County Board relating  to a proposed zone change. Its judgment shall be based upon, but not limited to the following factors as applicable. 

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan?___Yes X No Comments: No plan for the property submitted 

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification? X Yes ___No Comments: No change 

3. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

4. Is there a potential for public health, safety or traffic generation impacts based on the proposed zone change and how  will they be addressed?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the  proposal?___Yes X No 

Comments: None 

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses  permitted in the zoning district?___Yes X No

Comments: No change 

7. Has there been a change in the development in the general area of the property in questions?___Yes X No Comments: No change 

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood?___Yes X No Comments: No change 

Motion by Dohmen to deny the requested zone change. 

The motion was 2nd by Horntvedt, all in favor. Motion passes.  

Name of Applicant: Jennice Hayden Date: August 3, 2022 Location/Legal Description: SW¼NE¼ Section 7, T. 167N, R. 33W 

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection (SP) Proposed: Rural Residential (R2) Parcel Number(s): 06.07.13.000 Application Number: 22-01ZC 

The Planning Commission shall consider all facts from all sources prior to submitting a recommendation to the County Board relating  to a proposed zone change. Its judgment shall be based upon, but not limited to the following factors as applicable. 

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan?___Yes X No Comments: No plan submitted 

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification? X Yes ___No Comments: No change 

3. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

4. Is there a potential for public health, safety or traffic generation impacts based on the proposed zone change and how  will they be addressed?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the  proposal?___Yes X No 

Comments: None

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses  permitted in the zoning district?___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

7. Has there been a change in the development in the general area of the property in questions? 

___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood? 

___Yes X No 

Comments: No change 

Motion by Nelson to deny the requested zone change. 

The motion was 2nd by Dunnell, all in favor. Motion passes. 

– Consideration of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance Revisions 

o Articles X – XI (Ten – Eleven) 

Discussion resumed with completion of the Hayden requests. Plats will need to have the preliminary completed within a one-year time  frame. Then there is a 45-day window until final plat is recorded. Road right of way will be changing to 80’. Tiers along shoreland  language was simplified to two tiers. Density for resort PUD’s is changing to a square footage percentage of impervious surface rather  than number of structures. This will be for new resorts only. Setbacks will also be increased for new resorts. Conversions to  Residential PUD’s requires residential standards for density. Enforcement of ordinance was mentioned as something we continue to  try to improve.  

A Septic Inspection requirement upon sale or transfer was removed due to discussion about the available number of inspectors and  installers in the county. Cost of inspections was also noted as a concern to adding such language. 

Motion to Adjourn at 8:50 PM- Monica/Nancy. All in favor. 

July 6, 2022

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

7:00 P.M. on July 6, 2022 

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 1, 2022- Motion to approve-Dave/ Wes. All in favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

Board of Adjustment: New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #22-04V by Steven & Marissa Theis: A tract in Government Lot 1, East of the Winter Road  River and North of State Highway 172, less deeded in Section Twenty (20), Township One-hundred Sixty-one (161) North,  Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 24.20.12.050. Applicants are requesting a variance from Section 503.6 of the  Lake of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow a structure that will not meet the required one-hundred (100) foot setback  from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of Winter Road River. Winter Road River is a Tributary River segment.  

Steven Theis was present and discussed the request with the board. The board then moved on to the findings of fact and  decision.  

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? Personal expansion in a residential area. 

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. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

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

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

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

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change – remains the same. 

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

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

Condition(s): No closer than thirty-five (35) feet to road right of way. 

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 Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

Motion to Approve with Conditions- Dave/Wes. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Variance #22-05V by Bonny & Michael Edin: Lots Nine (9) and Ten (10), Block One (1), Angle  Outpost Acres, in Section Twenty-six (26), Township One-hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West –

Parcel ID#’s: 02.57.01.090 and 02.57.01.100. Applicants are requesting a variance from Section 605.1 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the subdivision of two contiguous non-conforming lots of record in the  shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.  

Michael and Bonny Edin were present and discussed the request with the board. The board then moved on to the findings of fact  and decision.  

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 lots platted in 1981. 

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 – still residential. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size platted in 1981. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Platted lots. 

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 Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

Motion to approve as presented – Dave/Nancy. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Variance #22-06V by Katherine Houser: A tract in Government Lot 4, in Section Seventeen (17),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.17.23.030. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 603 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow construction of a  deck that exceeds fifteen (15) percent of the existing setback of the structure from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL)  of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.  

Mr. Houser was present and discussed the request with the board. The board then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

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 recreation. 

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? Residential – no change. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lake setback. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lake setback. 

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? Lake setback. 

Condition(s): 

1. Cannot encroach any farther than drawing submitted. 

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 Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

Motion to approve with Conditions – Ken/Wes. All in favor.  

Motion to Close Board of Adjustment/ Open Planning Commission – Nancy/Dave. All in favor.  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-10CU by Steve Cooper: A tract in the Northeast quarter of the  Northeast quarter described as follows: The East 400’ of the North 480’ in Section Twenty-five (25), Township One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID#18.25.11.010. Applicant, as required by  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance Section 401C, is requesting the commercial operation of a short-term  transient rental in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).  

Steven and Jolynn Cooper were present to discuss their request with the board. The board then moved on to the findings of  fact and decision.  

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 development. 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Residential recreational development. No change. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? County Road 8 and private driveway 

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

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? Well has been tested and septic will be brought up to code if needed. 

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 (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Not needed. 

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 in driveway. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) Applicant to work with Land and Water Planning Office to get septic up to code in two (2) year time period.

2) Occupancy to be based on septic system capacity. 

3) CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property. 

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 Approve with Conditions- Dave/Monica. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance Revisions 

o Articles I – VIII (One – Nine) 

LWPO Director Josh Stromlund discussed ordinance revisions with the board. No action took place at this time as this was  more of a question/answer and discussion. The board asked Stromlund if he would draft language for compliance inspections to  be completed upon sale/transfer of property in the county. Again, no action took place in regards to the ordinance at this time.  

Motion to Adjourn at 10:07 PM- Wes/Ken. All in favor. 

June 1, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 1, 2022 

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 4, 2022- Motion to approve- Marshall/Dave. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-09CU by Robert Erickson: Tracts located in the Northeast  quarter of the Northwest quarter in Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.28.21.000, 19.28.21.010, 19.28.21.020. Applicant, as required by  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance 902, is requesting the cumulative movement of more than ten (10)  yards of material within the shore impact zone of Bostic Creek for the purpose of a shoreline rip rap project.  Bostic Creek is a tributary river segment. 

Bob Erickson explained the history of the seawall and past rip rap projects with the group. There was no public  correspondence. 

The board then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

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? Prevent shore erosion 

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? Prevent erosion, bank stabilization 

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? Stabilize the 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 ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Prevent erosion 

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? Reason for the project 

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:  

1.) Applicant to use typical cross-section design 

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 Approve with Conditions- Marshall/Ken. All in favor.  

Motion to Adjourn at 7:21PM – Monica/Wes. All in favor. 

May 4, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on May 4, 2022 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Nancy Dunnell, Ken Horntvedt, Monica Dohmen, Wes Johnson, Marshall Nelson 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 with amendments. Board would like to discuss new  business first and then move onto old business. -Marshall/Ken. All in favor.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 6, 2022- Motion to approve- Ken/Dave. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Tom Mio received notification regarding Driftwood Acres Final Plat.  

Board of Adjustment: No New Business  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Final Plat of Driftwood Acres by L&S Investing, LLC: A tract of land  located in Government Lots Three (3), Four, (4) and Five (5) all within Section Seven (7),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#  24.07.32.009. Applicant is requesting to create twelve (12) tracts for a residential development.  The Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment. 

Corey Steinbach, property owner, was present to discuss the approval of the final plat. The board  asked the owner questions in regards to the road (specs, construction, completion, easements,  emergency access…etc.), the present structures that need to be moved, additional lot considerations,  and a few typos that were found on the plat. The county surveyor needs to complete his final plat  check and get any corrections or changes completed prior to the creation of the mylars.  

Motion to approve presenting the final plat to county board – Ken/Wes. All in favor, Tom abstained.  Planning Commission: Old Business 

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-11ZC by Tod & Connie Barrow: West half (1/2) of the  Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Thirty-four (34), Township One  Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-Five (35) West – Parcel ID# 04.34.11.010.  Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance as allowed by Section 1206. The amendment would change the classification for the  property from a Special Protection (SP) District to a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District for  the purposes of allowing a permanent structure to be located on the property for residential  purposes. 

Tod and Connie Barrow joined via phone. Connie explained the current situation, the cabin is  completed on their property and now just needs to be moved, she is in the process of contacting locals  at the Angle who are going to assist her in trying to locate her property like the NW Edge Riders  snowmobile club, and the ice bridge Facebook page (ice road?). The board asked if they have  contacted the Red Lake Band to discuss crossing their property to access theirs, she has not yet but  will do so. The board also asked if she had contacted the boarder patrol in regards to obtaining access  to their property via the border cut, she has not discussed that with the boarder patrol but intends to do  so. The realtor who sold the property to the Barrow’s indicated that access was attainable, as they have hunted on the property numerous times, and that it was a residential parcel with no restrictions  in terms of building. Genereux Realty out of Theif River Falls sold the property to the Barrows. The  board clarified to the Barrows that if they decide to recommend changing the zoning to the County  Board, they are not guaranteeing access to their property. The board then moves on to the findings of  fact and decision.  

The Planning Commission shall consider all facts from all sources prior to submitting a recommendation  to the County Board relating to a proposed zone change. Its judgment shall be based upon, but not limited  to the following factors as applicable. 

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use  Plan?_ X¬_Yes ___No Comments: Rural Residential in area 

2. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification? _X¬_Yes ___No 

Comments: Rural Residential or Special Protection 

3. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood? __¬_Yes _X_No Comments: No change 

4. Is there a potential for public health, safety or traffic generation impacts based on the proposed  zone change and how will they be addressed? ¬_Yes _X_No 

Comments: No change 

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to  accommodate the proposal? __¬_Yes _X_No Comments: No change 

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement of  surrounding property for uses permitted in the zoning district? __¬_Yes _X_No Comments: Will not change 

7. Has there been a change in the development in the general area of the property in questions? __¬_Yes _X_No 

Comments: No changes 

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood? __¬_Yes _X_No 

Comments: Will not 

Conditions:  

1.) Must complete site building by 7/1/2023 

2.) Must show photo of completed structure on site to Josh Stromlund and Scott Head 3.) Must obtain access permission from Red Lake Band to cross their property 4.) Must obtain access permission from US Customs to use Border cut for access 5.) Property will revert back to Special Protection if cabin is not on site by 7/1/2023 The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods  County Board of Commissioners adopt the above findings and DENY / APPROVE the application for a  zone change be WITH / WITHOUT conditions. 

Approve with Conditions – Dave/ Wes. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-01CU by Jon Meikle: Northwest quarter (NW  ¼) Northwest quarter (NW ¼) of Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West — Parcel ID# 19.28.22.000. Applicant is requesting an  After-the-fact 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 and more than fifty (50) cubic yards outside of the shore impact zone of Bostic  Creek for the purpose of constructing a private drive. Bostic Creek is a Tributary River segment.  

Jim Meikle joined via phone to discuss the request. He has no immediate plans for the property. He was  given some free fill and placed it on the property last year (summer construction season 2021). There was an existing well that has been placed on the property and electricity for up to four (4) campers to be  placed on the property for friends or relatives to use. They also placed a dock on the property, again there  is no set plans for the future use of the property. There are no plans for the installation of a septic system  at this time. The SWCD and County will meet the Meikle’s out on site to discuss the wetland issues with  the fill when scheduling and weather allows. Correspondence was received from Brent Mason (DNR  Area Hydrologist) and Dan Compton (neighbor in favor of the request). Board then moves onto Findings  of Fact and Decision.  

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? Shoreland development 

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? Sediment barrier 

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? It will 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 ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Will be working with DNR, SWCD, and LOW County Land and Water  Planning departments 

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? County Road 8 Access 

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

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreland activities 

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 ( X ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? None planned 

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? 

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Has well – no sewage treatment planned 

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 ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Minimal increase- private use 

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 ( ) Why or why not? Not needed- 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 ( X ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? None needed 

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 site 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1.) Work with SWCD, DNR, and Land and Water Planning for fill redeposition, wetland protection,  and erosion control 

2.) CUP also includes boat ramp if requested 

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 Approve with Conditions- Dave/Marshall. All in favor.  

Motion to Adjourn at 8:09PM – Monica/Nancy. All in favor. 

April 6, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting  7:00 P.M. on April 6, 2022  

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

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

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None  

Board of Adjustment: No New Business  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-06CU by Twin Island Sleepers:  Government Lot Three (3) & Government Lot Four (4) in Section Three (3), Township  One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID#  17.03.21.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section  401.C and Section 402.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, for the  storage of more than five (5) fish houses and commercial winter ice fishing equipment, in  a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).  

Denton Rose was present to discuss the request. He has most of his fish houses presently stored  on site but would like to move them more to the east once a new culvert get placed this summer.  He would like to put some gravel down and would like to place two signs on the property. The  original application only listed 25 houses, but applicant said he would like to change that to up to  100 houses due to the popularity of the wheel houses. The board indicated that if the applicant  wanted to allow them to stay in those houses over the summer that would need to be permitted  separately as a campground. The applicant indicated that he would want a 5 acre pad to store the  houses and would keep the access points gated with a code padlock. The board also  acknowledged receipt of a correspondence with a neighboring property owner who had questions  that got answered by the Land and Water Planning Office staff. With no other members of the  public present the board moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

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? Out of view fish house storage  

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 ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Remove some vegetative cover only  

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? Adjacent to County Road 11  

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses?  

 YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District 

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? Vegetative to road and to the east; Every access to be gated  

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? Requesting two (2) 4’x8’ signs 

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? No parking on site needed 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1.) Limited to one-hundred (100) Fish house units – can include wheel houses 

2.) No habitation  

3.) Must maintain fifty (50) foot natural vegetative buffer beyond the road right of way and  on east side of the property 

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 approve with conditions – Dave/Wes. All in favor.  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-07CU by The Guide Shack: Part of  Government Lot five (5) being part of Outlot A of Brush Island according to the plat  thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder. – Parcel ID# 03.51.50.014 in Section  Twenty-nine (29), Township One-Hundred Sixty-eight (168) 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 commercial use of the  property consisting of a short-term transient rental property, in a Rural Residential  Zoning District (R2). Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.  

Bruce Baumgartner and Andy Lundbohm were present to discuss the request. They are fishing  guides at the Northwest Angle and would like a location to rent to their customers as well as others who have their own boats, or snowmobiles/winter houses for year-round rental. The cabin  currently has one dock and is getting a second dock this summer to allow for 4 boats to be able to  be parked there. They are unsure of how much capacity their current septic system has, but  indicated they would be willing to add on to get the system up to the capacity they desire, at least  10 people, but would like to ask for a maximum of 12 people. There was no as built submitted  when the system was installed so LWPO needs records indicating tank capacity and the size of  the mound to determine what the system gallons per day was designed for. The board  acknowledged the receipt of letters from neighboring property owners Jacob and Kelly Mertens,  Chris Caskey, Gary and Cathy Caskey, and Linda Kingery. The applicants also mentioned that  Wi-Fi was available in the rental and cell phone coverage worked as long as the renters had  Verizon cell service. The board then moved on to findings of fact and decision.  

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 use 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and  welfare? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change  

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 ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Lake access only 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses?  

 YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? 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? Vacation rental- water orientated 

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? Occupancy to be limited to septic inspection  

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? See #10 for septic – new well adequate  

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 ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Building a second dock  

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 ( X ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Must mark property lines  

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? One sign approximately 2’x3’  

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: 

1.) Quiet time from 10PM to 8AM 

2.) Occupancy to be based on septic size to a maximum of 12 people  

3.) Rules to be posted: quiet time, capacity limits, stay on property, no tents for additional  capacity 

4.) Contact information must be provided for complaints, emergencies, and septic 

5.) Conditional Use Permit expires on sale of property  

6.) Meet all MDH guidelines 

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 approve with conditions Dave/ Nancy. All in favor.  

Motion to Adjourn at 8:13PM – Monica/Ken. All in favor. 

March 2, 2022

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. 

February 2, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting  7:00 P.M. on February 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, 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-Marshall/Wes. All in favor.    

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 5, 2021- Motion to approve- Dave/Ken. All in favor.    

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None  

Board of Adjustment: New Business  

– Consideration of Variance Application #22-02V by Philip Tange: a tract in  Government Lot Three (3), Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.25.31.060. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 1005 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to sell a portion of property and relocate the boundary line between two  abutting non-conforming lots of record, which will increase the degree of nonconformity  for lot size and width within the shoreland area of the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an  Agricultural River segment. 

Mr. Tange was present to discuss the request. He indicated that he had sold a portion of the  property to the neighboring lot owners in 2018 and now he would just like to continue the line  across the property, while writing himself in a permanent easement to ensure he has legal access  to his property. The board clarified there were several requests with regards to this variance  request that would all be addressed with this one application. The board then moved on to the  findings of fact and decision.  

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: 

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? No change in conformity of lots. 

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.  

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and access issues. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Access. 

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? Access and lot size. 

Condition(s): 

1. New owner to agree to permanent easement for access. 

2. West lot line to be adjusted by future survey. 

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 Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance.  

APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X) DENIED ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions- Ken/Monica. All in favor.  

Motion to close Board of Adjustment- Ken/ Dave. All in favor.  

Motion to open Planning Commission- Monica/ Marshall. All in favor.  

Planning Commission: Old Business  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-01CU by Jon Meikle: Northwest  quarter (NW ¼) Northwest quarter (NW ¼) of Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West — Parcel ID# 19.28.22.000.  Applicant is requesting an After-the-fact 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 and more than fifty (50) cubic yards  outside of the shore impact zone of the Lake of the Woods for the purpose of constructing  a private drive. Bostic Creek is a Tributary River segment.  

Planning Commission asked the landowner if they would be willing to table the request until the  board can see what the activity actually looks like. The landowner needs to submit something in  writing to extend the 60 day window. The landowner agreed with the request and said he would  be in to sign the agreement this week. This request has been tabled until spring.  

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-02CU by Winter Sett Inc. Michael  Herzog: Lot 12, Block 3, Winter Sett Estates of Section nine (9) Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 18.51.03.120.  Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake  of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to cumulatively move more than fifty (50) cubic  yards of material outside of the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose 

of disposing dredged material from an existing inland harbor. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

Mr. Herzog was present to speak on behalf of the request. Essentially, he just wants to clean  out his harbor and then place this spoil material onto a bare lot that he owns just down the  road. He expects to deposit roughly 500 cubic yards of material onto this lot. This has been  done in the past but there was no conditional use permit ever requested. Three letters of  correspondence were read into the record from neighboring landowners in support of Mr.  Herzog’s request. There was an additional letter received from Brent Mason (DNR Area  Hydrologist) in response to the dredging of the harbor itself and not the deposit of material.  The board received copies of all letters in board packets with exception to one received from  a neighbor on the day of the meeting Feb 2, 2022. The board then moved on to the findings  of fact.  

Project Proposal: To allow applicant to cumulatively move more than fifty (50) cubic yards of  material outside the shore impact zone of the Lake of the Woods for the purpose of dredging an  existing inland harbor. 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? Recreational use.

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

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) 

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? Raise spoil  area. 

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)  

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? No change. 

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

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

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

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) 

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) 

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)  

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) 

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) 

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from  adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Not needed.  

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) 

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) 

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 – Dave/ Marshall. All in favor.  

– Set Date/Time of Training Session 

The board discussed possible dates for training with Scott Anderson – Land Use  Attorney.  

Motion to Adjourn at 7:34PM – Dave/Wes. All in favor.