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.

January 5, 2022

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on January 5, 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- Dave/ Marshall. All in favor.

Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 3, 2021- Motion to approve- Ken/ Dave. All in favor.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None

Board of Adjustment: New Business

– Consideration of Variance #22-01V by Doug Trupish: Lots 5, 6, 7, Block 2, East Pine Creek Plat, Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-five (35) West — Parcel ID# 02.51.02.050. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow a structure that will not meet the required 10-foot lot line setback. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Mr. Trupish was unable to attend in person so connected with the board remotely via teleconference. Patrick Onstead was also present to describe the request as the potential purchaser of the lot in question. Doug explained that he intends to sell the southern two lots to Mr. Onstead with the existing shed. As the property sits now the structure is conforming but once the southern lots are sold, the structure would become non-conforming, hence the reason for the variance. The two applicants in which this variance would affect the most are both present and neither party has any objection to the variance. Clarification was provided by the board to a Mr. Bloomquist who had received a letter in regards to the variance, once clarification was given Mr. Bloomquist had no opposition to the request.

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? Existing building

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? Remains Residential

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Existing building and common ownership of multiple lots

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Existing building and lots have been under common ownership for a very long time

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? Existing building and common ownership Condition(s):

1) This variance applies to the existing 16’ x 20’ structure only

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/ Marshall. All in favor.

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

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

Planning Commission: New 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.

At the site visit yesterday it was difficult for the board members to understand or see what was going on with the snow cover. The board would like to request the applicant to table this request until at least May/June. The applicant was not present at the meeting so no further discussion could occur.

Motion to table request until next meeting or until Spring if the applicant agrees- Dave/ Monica. All in favor.

Motion to Adjourn at 7:37PM – Marshall/ Nancy. All in favor.

November 3, 2021

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on November 3rd, 2021

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. The following members were absent: Wes Johnson. 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- approved Ken/ Marshall. All in favor.

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 6, 2021- Motion to approve Dave/Monica. All in favor.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None

Board of Adjustment: New Business

– Consideration of Variance #21-13V by Keith and Sally Kennedy: The North half (1/2) of Lot Four (4) and Lot Five (5), Block Five (5), Rocky Point Townsite within Section Eight (8), Township One-Hundred Sixty-Three (163) North, Range Thirty-Four (34) West- Parcel ID# 14.50.05.040. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to construct an addition less than the required twenty-foot (20’) setback from the Road Right-of-Way of Lake of the Woods Lane. Lake of the Woods is a general development lake.

Keith and Sally Kennedy spoke to the board regarding their claim. The purpose of this request is for a 3-season porch, no additional bedrooms will be added on to the structure. The garage is for storage with no living quarters.

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? Residential/Recreational 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? Residential

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

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

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? Lot size.

Condition(s):

1) Must have a septic system inspection.

2) Additional no larger than 12’x20’.

3) Completed by 12/31/2022.

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 close Board of Adjustment- Marshall/ Monica. All in favor.

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

Planning Commission: New Business

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-11ZC by 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.

Connie Barrow was unable to attend the meeting in person so was called on speaker phone to discuss the request. The property was purchased a year ago, and the current owner has not been to the property. She thought the property was zoned residential until requesting a building permit from Land and Water Planning office. Her plan is to build a pop up cabin on the property and would like to leave the structure permanently. The landowner plans to access the property via existing logging roads that she has observed on google maps. The board has concerns for this proposed access route as it would cross private property.

Motion to table request- Marshall/ Ken. All in favor.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-15CU by Robert Audette: A tract two hundred sixty-four feet by one-thousand five-hundred seventy-three feet (264’ x 1573’) in both Government Lot Two (2) of Section seven (7) Township One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West and the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Eighteen (18), Township One-hundred Sixty-Two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.65.00.090. 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 boat ramp. Lake of the Woods is a general development lake.

Robert Audette and his attorney representative Steve Anderson attended the meeting and spoke to describe the request. The main purpose behind the concrete is for access for his wife who has limitations due to medical reasons.

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO (X) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Proposed yes/ATF not

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? Did affect topography, drainage and veg 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 (X) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Concrete to shoreline past OHW replacing rip rap not acceptable.

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? For boat ramp.

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) Must remove concrete from NW corner of garage to NE corner of house deck with the exception of a 12-foot-wide walkway allowed to OHM.

2) From OHM to lake must use jointed concrete cable ties.

3) Must also replace rip rap to edges of concrete.

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.

Motion to Adjourn at 8:28PM – Ken/Monica. All in favor.

October 6, 2021

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on October 6th, 2021

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Ken Horntvedt, Monica Dohmen, and Dave Marhula. The following members were absent: Wes Johnson, Marshall Nelson, and District 5 vacant position. 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- approved Ken/ Dave. All in favor.

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 1, 2021- Motion to approve Dave/Monica. All in favor.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Ken Horntvedt and Tom Mio received notification of Driftwood Acres Preliminary Plat.

Board of Adjustment: New Business

– Consideration of Variance #21-010V by Randall and Naomi Sherf: Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Birch Beach Resort, Section Eight (8), Township One hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West, Parcel ID # of 16.51.01.060. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of an addition onto an existing structure that will not meet the required Seventy-five (75) foot setback from Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development lake.

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.

Findings of Fact and Decision Supporting/ Denying a Variance: 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? Recreational Land use

________________________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________________________

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property? YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Building placement prior to zoning regulations

________________________________________________________________________

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner? YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? See #3

________________________________________________________________________

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not Will not- remain residential

________________________________________________________________________

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size, location of current structure ________________________________________________________________________ Condition(s): Upgrade septic, complete by 12/31/2022

_______________________________________________________________________________

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/Ken. All in favor.

– Consideration of Variance #21-011V by D and K Cabins, LLC: Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Wheeler’s Point, Section Nineteen (19), Township One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID # of 19.52.04.020. Applicant is requesting a variance from Sections 605.1 and 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the subdivision of a non-conforming lot and to allow the existing structures to be closer than the required ten (10) foot lot line setback. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment.

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.

Findings of Fact and Decision Supporting/Denying a Variance: 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? Residential/Recreational Property use _____________________________________________________________________

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? Remains residential_____________ ________________________________________________________________________

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property? YES (X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Plotted lot sizes_____________ ______________________________________________________________________

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

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remains residential

________________________________________________________________________ 6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot sizes

________________________________________________________________________ Condition(s): Survey completed prior to split.

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/Monica- All in favor.

– Consideration of Variance #21-012V by Good Ice Properties, LLC: Lots 16 and 17, Welberg’s Addition, Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two North (162N), Range Thirty-two West (32W)- Parcel ID#19.53.00.160. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 603 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a deck/platform onto an existing structure that will exceed the fifteen (15) percent of the existing structure setback from the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment.

Board discussed request with no applicant present to comment on the situation and moved on to findings of fact and decision. The deck will be open (not enclosed) and will not encroach any closer than the existing structure.

Findings of Fact and Decision for Supporting/Denying a Variance: 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? Resort land use in commercial 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? Resort activity

________________________________________________________________________

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property? YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Original buildings set backs

________________________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________________________

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES ( X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remains commercial

________________________________________________________________________

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Set back requirements

________________________________________________________________________

Condition(s): Deck size cannot exceed submitted plan size

_______________________________________________________________________________

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- Monica/ Ken- All in favor.

Board of Adjustment: Old Business

– Consideration of Variance #21-09V by Keith Peppel: Lot 1, Block 4, Wheeler’s Point Plat, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 19.52.04.010. Applicant is requesting a variance from Sections 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow additions to an existing structure that will not meet the required 100-foot setback from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OWHL) of the Rainy River; will not meet the required 10-foot lot line setback; and, will not meet the required 20-foot Right-of-Way setback. Also, applicant is requesting a variance from 904 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to exceed the allowable 25% impervious surface lot coverage. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment.

Applicant submitted a formal withdrawn for this variance in writing.

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

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

Planning Commission: New Business

– Consideration of Preliminary 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. Applicant was present and discussed the proposal with the board.

-Church Property on US County Road

-Bituminous on Proposed Lot 1

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1.) Move two buildings to meet 100’ setback from the Rainy River

2.) Clarification on Public Road/Access of Proposed Lot 1

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

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-02ZC by MLK Rentals, LLC: Part of Outlot A, Birch Acres, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.61.50.020. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Residential (R1) Zoning District to a Commercial-Recreation (CR) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the property.

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision. Read a correspondence into the record from a nearby property owner who received notice of the changes.

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: Commercial corridor

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

_X__Yes ___No

Comments: Adjoining businesses (on CUP’s)

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

Comments:

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 or improvement

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the proposal?

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No additional services needed

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 impede – no change

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Increased business activity (CUP’s)

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: No change

Conditions:

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 APPROVE the application for a zone change be WITHOUT conditions.

Motion to Approve Without Conditions- Dave/ Monica- All in favor.

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-03ZC by MLK Holding Company, Inc.: The West 100 feet of the W1/2NE1/4, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.24.12.010. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District to a Commercial Recreation (CR) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the property. The property is currently being used as part of a storage area and for lake access. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.

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: Within commercial corridor

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Lake access

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: Lake access through wooded area- 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 needed

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 impede

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: Was covered by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the past

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

Conditions:

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.

Motion to Approve Without Conditions- Ken/ Dave- All in favor.

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-04ZC by MLK Holding Company, Inc.: The East 200 feet of the West 400 feet of the South 233 feet of the SW1/4NE1/4, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.24.12.020. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District to a Commercial-Recreation (CR) Zoning District for

the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the property. The property is currently being for fish house storage.

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.

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: Growth corridor

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Currently CUP

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments:

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: More commercial activity

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

Conditions:

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 APPROVE the application for a zone change be WITHOUT conditions.

Motion to Approve Without Conditions- Monica/ Dave- All in favor.

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-05ZC by MLK Holding Company, Inc.: The West 100 feet of the SW1/4SE1/4, Section Thirteen (13), Township One Hundred Sixty two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.13.43.010. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District to a Commercial Recreation (CR) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the property. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.

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: Within commercial corridor

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

_X__Yes ___No

Comments: Lake access

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

Comments: Lake access through wooded area- 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 needed

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 impede

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: Was covered by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the past

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

Conditions:

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.

Motion to Approve Without Conditions – Ken/ Dave- All in favor.

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-06ZC by MLT&T, LLC: Part of the W1/2NE1/4, Less deeded, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.24.12.000. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District to a Commercial-Recreation (CR) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the property. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.

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: In growth corridor

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Commercial to East & Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on property currently

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 – Current Conditional Use Permit (CUP)

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the proposal?

___Yes _X__No

Comments: None needed

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 impede

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: No – currently a Conditional Use Permitted (CUP) business

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: No change

Conditions:

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 APPROVE the application for a zone change be WITHOUT conditions.

Motion to Approve Without Conditions- Ken/ Monica- 3-1 Approved, Dave Opposed.

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-07ZC by MLT&T, LLC: A tract of land lying within Government Lot 1, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.24.11.000. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Residential (R1) Zoning District to a Commercial-Recreation (CR) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the property. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.

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: Commercial corridor

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Commercial adjoining

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments:

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:

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the proposal?

___Yes __X_No

Comments: None needed at this time

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 impede

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: Not recently

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

neighborhood?

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

Conditions: Current zoning currently appropriate

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.

Motion to Deny- Ken; Dies for lack of a 2^nd.

Motion to Deny- Monica/Dave- Motion carried to Deny 4-0- All in favor.

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-08ZC by MLT&T, LLC: The East 110 feet of the West 793 feet of the South 266 feet of the SW1/4NE1/4, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.24.12.040. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District to a Commercial-Recreation (CR) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the property.

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.

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: Growth corridor

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

_X__Yes ___No

Comments: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to the north

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

Comments: Single cabin

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 needed

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 impede

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Increase in commercial activity recently

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments: No change

Conditions:

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.

Motion to Approve Without Conditions- Monica/ Ken- All in favor.

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-09ZC by MLT&T, LLC: The SW1/4SE1/4 and Government Lot 5, Section Thirteen (13), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.13.43.000. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Rural Residential (R2), Special Protection (SP), and Residential (R1) Districts to a Commercial-Recreation (CR) District for the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the property. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.

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: Growth corridor

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to the south

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments:

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:

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the proposal?

___Yes _X__No

Comments: None at this time

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:

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

___Yes _X__No

Comments:

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments:

Conditions: SW ¼ / SE ¼ Zone Commercial Recreation (CR)

Government Lot #5 to remain Special Protection (SP) and Residential Development (R1)

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.

Motion to Approve with Conditions- Monica/ Ken- All in favor.

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-10ZC by MLK Holding Company, Inc.: The East 100 feet of the West 200 feet of the South 233 feet of the SW1/4NE1/4, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.24.12.011. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District to a Commercial-Recreation (CR) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing commercial activity on the property.

Board discussed request with applicant and moved on to findings of fact and decision.

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: Growth corridor

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

__X_Yes ___No

Comments: Currently CUP

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

Comments:

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: More commercial activity

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

___Yes __X_No

Comments: No change

Conditions:

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 APPROVE the application for a zone change be WITHOUT conditions.

Motion to Approve Without Conditions- Monica/ Dave- All in favor.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-14CU by Sean Westman: The Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SW1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4) in Section Twenty-six (26), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West- Parcel ID#19.26.41.040. Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the storage of commercial winter ice fishing equipment including more than five (5) fish houses in a Rural Residential (R2) district. Board discussed request without applicant present and moved on to findings of fact and decision.

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? Growth corridor

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? Highway 172

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Residential Development (R1) and Rural Residential (R2)

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? Must maintain vegetative screen

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.) Cannot see fish houses from outside property during summer leaf on conditions

2.) Houses must be 20 feet from property lines to protect neighbor’s property

3.) No more than 20 stored fish houses on this parcel

4.) No habitation during storage

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.

Motion to Adjourn at 9:38PM – Ken/Monica. All in favor.

September 1, 2021

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on September 1st, 2021

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Marshall Nelson, Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Wes Johnson, and Monica Dohmen. The following members were absent: District 5 vacant position. 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- approved Marshall/ Dave. All in favor.

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 7, 2021- Motion to approve Ken/Dave. All in favor.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Tom Mio received notification of Hapka Holdings, LLC CUP request.

Planning Commission: New Business

Consideration of Zone Change #21-01ZCV by Crown Holdings, LLC: The SW¼NW¼, Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.36.23.000. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District to a Residential (R1) Zoning District for the purposes of a subdivision and development of lots.

Scott Heteen is the property owner who is requesting this change. Scott is working with Widseth to develop the property and put in a road for a new subdivision. Minor subdivision is the preliminary plan with 1.66 acre lots with a total of 18 lots. The proposed plan with be developed over time, with 8 lots being developed every 5 years. For wetland impacts Josh Stromlund and applicant have spoken regarding the locations. The plan is to allow those who purchase lots with wetlands to have more acreage than those without. The line between where those wetlands are is pretty obvious to both the applicant and the board. The wetland boundary will be decided by a chosen elevation to make the delineation simpler. The board then asked Josh Stromlund if a 1.66 acre lot is large enough to accommodate a dwelling and two proposed sites for septic. Mr. Stromlund indicated that size should be adequate to accommodate a typical 2500/3000 square foot structure and two septic sites. The board asked the applicant how soon he hopes to accomplish this project. He indicated that this is the first step and once the zone change is approved, if it is, then he hopes to have a plat completed by Widseth as soon as possible. He would like to clear an area and then get a road placed on the property this year if possible. More discussions will come on the layout of the lots, road right of way widths, and who the developer wants to take care of the road (county, landowners…etc.).

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: Change from R2 to R1 for platting.

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

X Yes ___No

Comments: Adjacent is R2.

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

__ Yes X No

Comments: Still R2.

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?

X Yes ___No

Comments: County Road to the north, State Hwy to West and new road to be built according to plat.

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the proposal?

X Yes ___No

Comments: Easement will be addressed in plat.

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: Increased residential and long-term vacation rental.

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

neighborhood?

___Yes X No

Comments:

Conditions: None

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. Motion to approve- Dave/Marshall. All in favor.

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-11CU by Paul Haugo: Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Wildwood North Subdivision, Section Nine (9), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID#: 18.50.01.090 and 18.50.01.100. 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) yards of material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) yards outside of the shore impact zone of Zippel Bay of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a general development lake.

Paul Haugo is the property owner who is requesting this CUP. He described the muskrat issues and erosion that the property owners have been having within the Zipple Bay area. This is when he decided to use granite and rocks to rip rap the shoreline of both lots. He described the process they used. First placing landscaping fabric down and then roughly 6” of rock approximately 8-10’ in width. The shoreline was not changed or adjusted at all; they just followed the existing shoreline. This was done to both stabilize the shoreline from additional erosion issues and to keep the creatures away from it. The board then asked why this was after the fact, Paul indicated that he didn’t know a permit was required for this activity and will ensure proper permits are obtained prior to completing any additional work. DNR has been involved with this project and has indicated to Paul that if the project gets scaled back to only 200’ of shoreland impact a permit will not be required. Paul indicated that he plans to remove some of the rip rap in order to stay under that limit so a permit will not be required through the DNR. This project was completed in 2017/2018. The Board then reviews the notice received from the DNR, Brent Mason. Aerial imagery comparisons show that the project was not present in 2018 aerials but the specific date of when those images were taken is not known. The letter from Brent Mason (DNR Area Hydrologist- Bemidji based) indicates that he is still waiting to hear from Paul regarding the after the fact public works permit regarding the shoreline impact. Paul indicating that this is one reason why he wants to scale the project back, so that a DNR permit will not be required. Regarding the impervious surface coverage, DNR is waiting on a value for how much of the property is now considered impervious surface, which includes the crushed granite material. Comparisons between the aerial imagery also highlight the vegetation and tree removal that took place on the property. The trees that were removed were just tall weeds, all viable trees were kept and more pines and grass see has been planted. Letters from the public were acknowledged in support of the CUP and the letter from the Brent Mason (DNR) was acknowledged.

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? Shoreline protection.

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreline protection.

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? Removed trees, removed shoreland vegetation, and changed slope to shore.

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

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 (X) N/A ( )

Why or why not? To be based on DNR findings.

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? Shoreline protection.

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? Removed vegetative screening.

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) Must meet requirements of DNR letter dated 8/31/21 from Brent Mason.

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/Wes. All in favor.

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-12CU by Hapka Holdings, LLC: Government Lot One (1) less deeded the north six hundred sixty feet (660’) of Government Lot Two (2) less the south four hundred fifty feet (450’) of Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-one

(161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 24.07.22.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Rainy River. Rainy River is an agricultural river segment.

Glen Borgen is the representative speaking for Hapka Holdings in the request of this conditional use permit. The applicant is desiring to pour concrete roughly 20’ in length to make a private/personal boat landing on the north end of the property. This will comply with all DNR standards regarding installation and use of private boat ramps. The dimensions will be 12’ in width and 6” thick concrete pads. The board asked what the plans were to prevent future erosion and Glen mentioned that this location looks like it had already been used as a ramp so not too much removal or work would need to be done. The large rocks right in the way of the approach would need to be moved out of the way. This part of the Rainy River is relatively shallow so the ramp would need to extend fairly far into the water in order to allow proper access. The DNR has been made aware of the project and the applicant will comply with any conditions they present. The side slopes have been cut out so the dirt work that would need to be completed is relatively minimal. The board then asked about additional development and whether or not the land owner plans to sell or split these lots further. There is some preliminary discussion but no set plans have been made. The board then asks how much material would be moved? Glen says that not much would need to be moved as the slope is already very gradual. Some type of a dock needs to be placed there. What about the two boats landings that are within a mile of the property? The landowner wants to have a private access for himself to use. Michelle (a neighbor to the property) was there to comment on the project, she

was given misinformation on the project (thought the boat ramp would be placed in the drainage ditch). Since that is not the case she has no issues with the project.

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? River access/recreational.

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

9) 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? To follow DNR specs.

10) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Will not or little change.

11) 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? Shoreland river access.

12) 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? To follow DNR specs.

13) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

14) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Recreational area/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? Private launch site.

11) 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? ______________________________________________________

14) 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? ______________________________________________________

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

16) 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? No change.

18) 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? ______________________________________________________

19) 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? ______________________________________________________

20) 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? ______________________________________________________

21) 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? Private launch.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1) Follow DNR requirements for private launch.

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. Ken/Dave. All in favor.

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-13CU 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 a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of a rip rap project. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

The applicant wants to restructure the shoreland existing rocks and then backfill behind it. All work is to be completed within 6’ of the shoreland area. The total shore impact area would be roughly 500’. The plan is to move as much material out of the area that they legally can, place fabric down, and then place the rocks back so the project is done correctly. Does this require a DNR permit? Yes, if the work is done below the OHWL. Going over 200’ will trigger a DNR permit if they go below the steaked off areas that the DNR placed there. Letters from Brent Mason (DNR Area Hydrologist) were presented.

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Shoreline stabilization.

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreline stabilization.

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? 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? DNR requirements.

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? Shoreland stabilization.

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1) Follow DNR guidelines for riprap.

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 close Planning Commission- Ken/Marshall. All in favor.

Motion to open Board of Adjustment- Marshall/ Dave. All in favor.

Board of Adjustment: New Business

Consideration of Variance #21-07V by Harold and Kari Gustafson: A tract of land lying within Government Lot Three (3), Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.25.31.119. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 501.1 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to split a non conforming lot in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

Wants to split and sell a recently acquired property from the county. The road splits the property in two already, so they plant to just follow that boundary. The applicant (Dave, I presume no introductions were made), mentioned that a surveyor has been contacted and will hopefully be out soon to assess and create new legal descriptions for the property split. MNDOT owns the neighboring property and sent in a letter for comment- they have no issue with the sale of this property. No further questions from the board- so they move on to findings of fact:

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? Provides property to two adjacent landowners.

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? Increased lot size.

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Divided by a road.

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

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Will not.

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Reasonable use of entire property.

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- Dave/Wes. All in favor.

Consideration of Variance #21-08V by Jonathan McHaney: A tract in Government Lot Two (2), Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.36.14.080. Applicant is requesting a variance from Sections 503.5 and 603 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to build a structure less than the required one hundred-foot (100’) setback of the Rainy River and construct a deck that will exceed the allowable 15% of the structure setback. Rainy River is an agricultural river segment.

Applicant would like to tear down the current cabin down to the foundation, then construct a new cabin with an addition in the same location utilizing the same foundation. This would all be done in the same location and not impede any closer to the river. The board asks the applicant about his large backyard and why he wouldn’t be able to utilize more of the yard rather than keeping it in the same place. He indicated that he has had several contractors on site and the foundation is in good shape so he just wants to add on to it for the new structure. Josh gave a brief explanation to the board regarding when a permit is not required (re-siding, new doors/windows or re-roofing a structure), he also mentioned that in the cases of natural disasters destroying a structure then the applicant can apply within 180 days of that disaster and get granted a new permit. He also discussed the history of the setbacks, in the past the Rainy River used to have a 75’ setback similar to Lake of the Woods. When the Rainy River ordinance came into affect in the early 1990’s that is when that value was changed to 100’ OHWL setback. This is when the classification of the Rainy River changed to either a historic or a scenic waterway. With no further public discussion or letters received the board moves onto the findings of fact:

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 further encroachment on river setback.

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? Remains residential

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Existing foundation and past setback requirements.

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

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Will not/remains the same.

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Current foundation site and past setback requirements.

Condition(s):

1) House must not encroach any closer to river.

2) Deck on front of house cannot exceed more than 15% of setback (max of 10 ft in width). 3) Must complete by 12/31/23.

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- Monica/Marshall. All in favor.

Consideration of Variance #21-09V by Keith Peppel: Lot 1, Block 4, Wheeler’s Point Plat, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 19.52.04.010. Applicant is requesting a variance from Sections 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow additions to an existing structure that will

not meet the required 100-foot setback from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OWHL) of the Rainy River; will not meet the required 10-foot lot line setback; and, will not meet the required 20-foot Right-of-Way setback. Also, applicant is requesting a variance from 904 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to exceed the allowable 25% impervious surface lot coverage.

Mr. Peppel requests that this variance be tabled as he is in discussion with neighboring landowners. This request will be tabled until the following meeting, pending further discussions with the landowner.

Motion to table request- Marshall/Monica. All in favor.

Motion to Adjourn at 8:45 PM- Dave/Wes. All in favor.

July 7, 2021

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on July 7, 2021

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Ken Horntvedt, Marshall Nelson, Reed McFarlane, Tom Mio, and Scott Head. The following members were absent: Wes Johnson and Dave Marhula. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.

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

Approval of the Agenda:

Motion to approve agenda – M/K

With a motion to move the Election of Chair and Vice Chair to the end of the meeting.

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 2, 2021- Motion to approve R/K

With a motion to change Marshall from Present to Absent.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None

Board of Adjustment – New Business

– Consideration of Variance #21-06V by Dale Verbout: Lots 43 and 44, Block 1, Schmidt Waag Subdivision, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West, Parcel ID# 16.53.01.430. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow construction of a structure at less than the required seventy-five (75) foot setback from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of Lake of the Woods and at less than the required ten (10) foot line setback. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Tom asked if landowner was present, Dale Verbout was in attendance to discuss the claim. Josh Stromlund provided the board with a new map that indicates the adjacent neighboring properties (to the north and south) are both approximately 72-73 (seventy-two to seventy-three) feet from the Ordinary High-Water Mark. Josh also indicated that this map was not to be taken with complete certainty, as the aerial imagery can show slight variation to what is actually present. Dale also remarked about getting allowed a 12% (twelve percent) impediment on the allotted 75 (seventy-five) foot set back allotment for the Lake. Josh indicated that since he was starting with a bare lot that this allotment, which is actually 15% (fifteen percent) did not apply here. With the 75 (seventy-five) foot ordinary high water mark setback and the proposed structure length with garage and house combined at 66 (sixty-six) feet that would be hard to fit a septic system into the lot on the back. Dale also inquired about where his property line extended out to, Josh indicated that the survey pins that were placed when the plat was created were placed based on where the water level was at that time. Dale indicated that his property is a 220 (two-hundred twenty) foot long lot. 75 (seventy-five) plus 66 (sixty-six) is 141 (one-hundred forty-one) feet, which leaves 79 (seventy-nine) feet for a septic system, minus the 10 (ten) foot lot line setback, so only 69 (sixty-nine) feet. Dale indicated that would be enough room for the septic system so he didn’t think the ordinary high water mark setback would be of further issue or discussion. Dale then inquired about his lot line setback on the north to be reduced to 5 (five) feet to fit the proposed structure width of 34 (thirty-four) feet while still allowing access to the lake on the south lot line. The neighbor to the north has a garage located within 1 (one) foot from the property lines. Dale was unsure of when this property was constructed. Dale also inquired about how the mound system would affect his neighbor’s property in terms of runoff from the mound system. Josh indicated that there would be slight run off potential towards the neighbors from what falls on top of the mound. Reed stated a personal opinion on the matter. First, it was a 50 (fifty) foot lot, and it was that size when you purchased the property. You knew what the setbacks would be when you bought it since the setbacks have no changed in that time. You had a compliant structure when you purchased the property that did meet all setbacks. We want to try and uphold all zoning ordinances and setback requirements when we can. The other side of it, those are very small lots and we have a variance process, so that variances can be granted in certain circumstances. When variances are granted, they are usually tied to conditions and there is usually good reasoning to support the issuance of a variance. Dale then indicated that he had talked to both of his neighbors in the north and south and neither neighbor opposed his variance, which is why they didn’t send any correspondence or be present for the meeting because they had no objections to his claim. He also indicated that with the 5 (five) foot infringement on the lot line setback he wasn’t sure if construction work would have to cross the property line or not to complete the work when he was building. Then the board asked Dale if he had thought about plans for proposed building if this variance was to no be granted. Dale indicated that they could change their plan of a garage to more of a carport style and move more of the rooms in the house to the second floor. Dale also indicated that the purpose of this home would be to sell his current home in Roseau and make this more of a residence then just a cabin. The board presented the public correspondence, a letter from Lisa and Paul Scheirer, which discusses the setback from the ordinary high-water mark, but that part of the variance has been revoked. All board members have received and read this correspondence.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISIONSUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE

Name of Applicant: Dale Verbout Date: July 7, 2021 Parcel #: 16.53.01.430 Variance Application #: 21-06V

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? Residential area with small 50’ 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? Residential – no change.

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? 50’ lot size.

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

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? Lot size.

Condition(s):

1) Completed by December 31, 2024.

2) Variance for 5’ setback on north side of property only.

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 ( ) July 7, 2021 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/R. All in favor, none opposed.

Board of Adjustment – Election of Chair and Vice Chair.

Reed informed the board that he has purchased a new property in Texas and has sold his property in Lake of the Woods County and will now only be in the County during the summer months but not a full-time resident and will be missing more than four meetings. Therefore, Reed intends to resign from the board. Reed will need to contact Cody Hasbargen so that he will be able to nominate a replacement for the board.

Election of Chair- Tom Mio – Motion to approve M/R All in favor.

Election of Vice Chair: Dave Marhula- Motion to approve R/S All in favor. Motion to adjourn- M/S All in favor, none opposed.

Meeting adjourned at 7:46 PM.

June 2, 2021

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 2, 2021

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Wes Johnson, Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, and Reed McFarlane. The following members were absent: Scott Head and Marshall Nelson. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund, Keith Aune, Travis Barclay, Jon Waibel, and Brian Ney.

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

Approval of the Agenda:

Motion to approve agenda – K/D

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 5, 2021 – R/W

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None

Board of Adjustment – New Business

– Consideration of Variance #21-05V by Gary Kullhem and Travis Barclay: Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Rainy River Retreat, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.62.02.010 and 19.62.02.020. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Sections 503.7 and 605 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure at less than the required fifty (50) Right-of-Way setback from State Highway 172 NW and split two non conforming lots of record under common ownership in a Commercial-Recreation Zoning District.

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner was present to come to the table and explain their request. Mr. Kullhem approached the table and explained he was the representative for this request. Mr. Kullhem explained that the property has been owned by himself for roughly six years. Mr. Barclay then approached the table and explained he was a representative as a prospective owner of the lot, should it split and wanted to place a 44’ x 70’ shop, encroaching the allowed setbacks. Discussion between the Board, Mr. Kullhem, and Mr. Barclay ensued. Keith Aune (nearby resident near the parcel in question at lot 9). He posed questions regarding the well that services rainy river retreat, and wanted to better grasp the implications the new development would have on this well. They discussed the lot size (already nonconforming), setback requirements, and the Wheeler’s Point Sanitary District.

Mio noted written correspondence was received from Steve Rutzel (nearby resident on lot 5), Kent Buschel Spears, David Lang, Linda Straus regarding taxes, the shared well, and trash/recycling/fish cleaning….etc, and the upkeep of the road/ increase of traffic. With no further discussion from the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of Facts.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE

Name of Applicant: Gary Kullhem Date: June 2, 2021

Parcel #: 19.62.02.010 and 19.62.02.020

Variance Application #: 21-05V

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? Currently commercial.

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? Remains commercial and it is suitable to place a workshop in that area.

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

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

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? Lot size and county setbacks. Condition(s):

1) To be used only for commercial use.

2) Building start must be completed by December 31, 2023.

3) Lot sale from lot split can occur at anytime after June 2, 2021.

4) Living quarter concerns will be addressed by MDH process.

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) DENIED ( ) Motion to Approve with Conditions: D/W. All in favor, none opposed.

With no further business in front of the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio entertained a motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting.

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting: K/D. All in favor, none opposed. Mr. Mio entertained a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting. Motion to open the Planning Commission meeting: D/R. All in favor, none opposed. Planning Commission – Old Business

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

Mr. Mio asked if a representative was present from Hooper Creek LLC was present and to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Brian Ney stated he could be the representative for Hooper Creek, LLC. This was tabled last discussion as per deficiencies with the submittal of the final plat, and the changes have now been rectified. Mio noted no further written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any objections.

Motion to Approve Final Plat: D/R. All in favor, none opposed.

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-09CU by Leroy Howard: Lot 3, Block 2, Dawley Estates, Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel ID# 31.53.02.030. 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 ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of constructing a private boat ramp.

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner or a representative was present to come to the table and explain their request. Mr Howard was present as the current landowner. Mr. Mio suggested that the removal of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material within the basin area should also be added to the permit, which is outside the shore impact zone.

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of

Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any objections.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Leroy Howard

Date: June 2, 2021

Location/Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 2, Dawley Estates, Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel

ID# 31.53.02.030

Project Proposal: 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 ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of constructing a private boat ramp.

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? Expansion and upgrade of an existing ramp.

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

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? Ramp will be bermed.

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? Vegetative cover will be restored to previous state

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? It’s a boat launch so it needs to be within the floodplain/way of the river.

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? Ramp will be bermed.

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?

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

Why or why not?

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

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

Why or why not? It’s a boat ramp/launch.

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? No change.

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? 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 (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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: This CUP, also includes more than fifty (50) yards in non-shore impact zone. Vegetative cover must be planted to subdue erosion.

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: D/K. All in favor, none opposed.

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-10CU by Nicholas and Jessie Anthony: NE¼SW¼NE¼, SW¼SE¼NE¼, S½SE¼SE¼NE¼, Section Twenty six (26), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#: 19.26.13.010. 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 transient rental in a Rural Residential

Development (R2) Zoning District.

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner or a representative was present to come to the table and explain their request. Jon Waibel came to the table and explained he was the representative for the project in lieu of the landowners. He explained the landowners are looking to rent this property out and are aware of the MDH regulations regarding the well and parking, and a compliance inspection has been completed for the existing septic system. The landowners have indicated that this will be more used as a winter rental rather than a summer rental and there are no current plans to begin renting it out this summer. They discussed MDH guidelines and indicated to the representative that the landowners must complete and provide all applicable information to MDH prior to the conditional use.

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any objections.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Nicholas and Jessie Anthony

Date: June 2, 2021

Location/Legal Description: NE¼SW¼NE¼, SW¼SE¼NE¼, S½SE¼SE¼NE¼, Section Twenty-six (26), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,

Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID#: 19.26.13.010

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 transient 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? Remote area.

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

Why or why not? Must comply with MDH guidelines.

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 MN172

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? Individual Septic System with compliance inspection.

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? Individual Septic System and Private Wells (x2)

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? No change or additional traffic as before.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

1.) This CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property.

2.) Must meet MDH requirements.

3.) Must pay lodging tax.

4.) Quiet time 10 pm to 6 am.

5.) Must meet State Fire Code.

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: K/D. All in favor, none opposed.

Tom Mio would like to resign as Chairman of the Board. Board asked to table this discussion until the next meeting.

With no further business Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Adjournment: D/W

May 5, 2021

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on May 5, 2021

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula Reed McFarlane and Marshall Nelson. The following members were absent: Wes Johnson. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund, Richard Corle, Connor Ambrose, Travis Barclay, Brian Kabat, and Brian Ney.

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

Approval of the Agenda:

Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Horntvedt/Head

Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 7, 2021 – M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None

Board of Adjustment – New Business

– Consideration of Variance #21-04 by Kristine Hawkins: Lot 2, Block 1, Harris Addition, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 19.63.01.020. Applicant is requesting a variance Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct a platform at less than the required ten (10) foot property line setback; construct an addition at less than the required seventy-five (75) foot Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) setback from Lake of the Woods; and a variance from Section 603 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct a platform that will exceed the required fifteen (15%) of the existing structure setback from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a General Development lake.

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner was present to come to the table and explain their request. Mr. Ambrose approached the table and explained he was the representative for this request. Mr. Ambrose explained that the property has been in the family for years and they are looking to update the property consistent with other improvements that have occurred in the area. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Ambrose ensued. They discussed the lot size, setback requirements, addition locations and the Wheeler’s Point Sanitary District.

With no further discussion from the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any objections.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE

Name of Applicant: Kristine Hawkins Date: May 5, 2021 Parcel #: 19.63.01.020 Variance Application #: 21-04V

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? Currently residential.

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? Remains residential.

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

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

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

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

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? Lot size.

Condition(s):

1) Additions cannot exceed proposed sketch.

2) Completed by 12/31/22.

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) DENIED ( )

Motion to Approve with Conditions: M/S/P Nelson/Horntvedt. All in favor, none opposed.

With no further business in front of the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Mio entertained a motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting.

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting: M/S/P Nelson/Marhula. All in favor, none opposed.

Mr. Mio entertained a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting.

Motion to open the Planning Commission meeting: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head. All in favor, none opposed.

Planning Commission – New Business

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-07CU by Tillman Infrastructure, LLC, on behalf of Richard and Teresa Humeniuk: The SE¼SW¼, Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel ID# – 31.12.31.080. 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 commercial communications tower in a Rural Residential District (R2).

Mr. Mio asked if the landowner or a representative was present to come to the table and explain their request. Mr. Brian Kabat came to the table and explained he was the representative for the project. He explained that this request is part of the nationwide First Net communication project

being conducted to assist in emergency response. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Kabat ensued. They discussed tower height, lighting, and possible leases from other communication vendors.

With no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Mr. Mio moved on to the Findings of Facts. Mio noted no written correspondence was received and nobody in attendance had any objections.

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Tillman Infrastructure, LLC, on behalf of Richard and Teresa Humeniuk Date: May 5, 2021

Location/Legal Description: The SE¼SW¼, Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West, Parcel ID# – 31.12.31.080

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 commercial communications tower in a Rural Residential 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? Communication and safety network.

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

Why or why not? Will increase safety.

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? Will not change.

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?

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

Why or why not? Adjacent to a County Road.