June 5, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 5, 2019 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken  Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane, Dave Marhula, Marshall Nelson, and Wes Johnson. Others present  were: Land and Water Planning Environmental Specialist Dane Lynch.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 6, 2019 

M/S/P McFarlane/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

Marshall Nelson – Vic and Jeri Beckel Request 

Board of Adjustments – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #19-03V by Roger Knutson: A tract of land in the  SW¼ of the SW¼, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty-one  (161) North, Range Thirty-three (32) West, Parcel ID# 22.28.33.010. Applicant is  requesting a Variance as required by Section 503.7 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance, to allow applicant to construct a storage shed less than the  required ten (10) foot lot line setback. 

Mio asked Mr. Knutson to come to the table and explain his request. 

Mr. Knutson explained that he would like to build a storage shed three feet from his East  property line, to allow for him to easily back trailers into the shed. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Knutson and the Board. The location of the shed was discussed,  and possible alternative locations for the shed was discussed. 

Mio read a letter into the record from James Kotila an adjoining property owner. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded 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: Roger Knutson Date: June 5, 2019 Parcel #: 22.28.33.010 Variance Application #: 19-02V 

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 ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? ___Violates 10’ 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? ___Storage Shed__________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? ___Placement of building site_______________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? ___Landowner decision ________________ __________________________________________________________________ 

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? ___Other considerations_________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 

Condition(s):  

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 ( ) DENIED ( x ) 

June 5, 2019 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to deny the request. 

Motion seconded by Marhula. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of  Adjustments. 

Motion made by Marhula to close Board of Adjustment. 

Motion seconded by Nelson 

All in favor, motion passed. 

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-03CU by Vic and Jeri Beckel:  Tract 8, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.28.13.010. Applicant is requesting a  Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a fish house storage park consisting of fifteen  (15) fish houses in a Rural-Residential District (R-2). 

Mio asked Dean Weise to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Weise explained that the Vic & Jeri Beckel are looking to store the fish houses on the far  eastern portion of the lot to be away from the road. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Weise and the Board. The Board asked about the amount of fish  houses and if they would be screened. 

Mio read one letter into the record from Mike Bogart.

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed to the Findings  of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: _Vic & Jeri Beckel___________________ Date: _June 5, 2019___________ 

Location/Legal Description: _Tract 8 Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One hundred sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.28.13.010_______________________ Project Proposal: Operate a fish house storage park consisting of fifteen (15) fish houses in a Rural Residential District (R-2). 

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? ____Fish house storage_____________________________________ 

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

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? ____See conditions_________________________________________ 

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

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type  and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __Storage of fish houses adjacent______________________________ 

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? ___See conditions__________________________________________ 

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? __No signage_______________________________________________ 

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant  adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?   YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _No parking on-site – Storage only_____________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) A visual barrier must be established and maintained on three sides (North, South and West)  of the storage area with White Spruce not less than five (5) feet high and spaced no further apart  than eight (8) feet. These trees are to be planted in a double row and staggered to provide  maximum visual screening. Planting of said trees is to be conducted no later than December 31,  2019.

2) Storage area is to be located on the Easterly four-hundred (400) feet of the described  property. 

3) Storage area is for said fish house business only. 

4) No more than fifteen (15) rental fish houses on the property. 

5) No client vehicles are to be parked on said property. 

6) Damage caused by business activities, and/or general maintenance to the private road, shall  be the responsibility of the landowner. 

7) No occupation is allowed of said fish houses on site. 

8) Off-season storage of business related equipment must be stored out of sight, either inside  a structure or within the fish house storage area. 

9) The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioner’s may review the conditions  placed upon approval within one (1) year of the date of approval and may require the  establishment and maintenance of a visual buffer, similar to above, be placed parallel to the  westerly boundary of the described property to further enhance the visual screening. 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the  Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( x ) Denied ( ) 

_____________________________________ 

Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Horntvedt..  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-04CU by R&J Developments LLC:  A tract of land in the SE¼SW¼ of Section Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.61.50.010. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401B of the Lake of the  

Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a plumbing and heating business with  showroom in a Residential District (R-1).

Mio asked Rick Amundson to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Amundson explained that he is looking to build a shop to store his business vehicles and to  have a small show room. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Amundson and the Board. The Board asked about his showroom  and the products that would be sold on the premise. Also, the size and the appearance of the  building was discussed. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed to the Findings  of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: _R&J Developments LLC___________________ Date: _June 5,  2019___________ 

Location/Legal Description: _ A tract of land in the SE¼SW¼ of Section Twenty-four (24),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID#  19.61.50.010_____________________ 

Project Proposal: Operate a plumbing and heating business with showroom in a Residential  District (R-1). 

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __Shared driveway____________________________________ 

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? __State highway – Share driveway________________________ 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Adjacent businesses – Growth corridor ______________________ 

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? _Built to county specs______________________________________ 

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? ___Septic & well designed__________________________________ 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 ( x ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___Not necessary______________________________________

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for  the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from  adjacent properties to the extent possible?  

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __Signage on building__________________________________ 

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant  adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?   YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __Parking on-site_____________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _Complete by 12/31/2020__________ 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( x ) Denied ( ) 

 ________________________________ 

Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Nelson  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-05CU by Jamie Gowdy: Lots 1, 2,  3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Welberg’s Second Addition, Section Thirty-six (36), Township  One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID#  19.68.01.010; 19.68.01.020; 19.68.01.030; 19.68.01.040; 19.68.01.050; and  19.68.01.060. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 401B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate short term vacation rentals on each lot in a Residential District (R-1). 

Mio asked Jamie Gowdy and Alan Fish representing Mr. Gowdy to come to the table and explain  the request.  

Mr. Fish explained that Mr. Gowdy is looking to obtain approval to for the six lots to be able to  have short-term vacation rentals located on the lots. Mr. Fish went on to explain that the area is a  is located near a golf course as well as a couple resorts.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Fish, Mr. Gowdy and the Board. The Board asked about how the  lots would be accessed, the number of lots that were being requested, the proposed layout of the  lots. The Board then asked about the restrictive covenants associated with the lots. Mr. Gowdy  and Mr. Fish stated that they were working to change the covenants of the property. The board  then expressed some concerns regarding the request. Discussion then ensued about between Mr.  Gowdy, Mr. Fish and the board about how the boards concerns will be addressed. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed to the Findings  of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: Jamie Gowdy Date: June 5, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Welberg’s Second Addition,  Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.68.01.010; 19.68.01.020; 19.68.01.030; 19.68.01.040; 19.68.01.050; and  19.68.01.060.  

Project Proposal: Operate short-term vacation rentals on each lot in a Residential District (R-1). 

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? _New construction meeting covenants and regulations__________ 

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution,  including sedimentation and nutrient loading?  

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 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? _Adjacent to county road 31________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __Residential_____________________________________________ 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES ( ) 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? _To meet new construction requirements_______________________ 

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? __to meet new requirements________________________________ 

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? _Housing_______________________________________________

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? __No signage___________________________________________ 

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant  adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?   YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __on-site per each lot_____________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __Must have covenants changed to allow  project_ 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( x ) Denied ( ) 

 ____________________________ 

Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Nelson  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

With no further business for the Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning  Commission.  

Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula 

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings.

February 6, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on February 6, 2019 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 9, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Board of Adjustments – New Business 

Consideration of after-the-fact Variance #19-01V by Scott Wold: A tract of land  in the NE¼ of the SE¼, Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.21.13.021. Applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance from Section 4.1.4 of the Lake of the Woods County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System  Ordinance and Section 502.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to  allow the applicant to create an after- the-fact a non-conforming lot with less than the  required 100’ of frontage on Bostic Creek and without 2 sites for a standard septic  system in an area that is zoned as Special Protection (SP). 

Mio asked Mr. Wold to come to the table and explain his request. 

Mr. Wold explained that he would like to build a seasonal cabin on the property and eventually  build pole barn for storage. He plans to use it primarily for ice fishing in the winter, it will not be  a residence. He explained that he was originally planning to purchase the entire 10-acre tract but  Beckels purchased the entire lot and he purchased a portion of it, not realizing that splitting the  lot would change what he was able to do on the lot. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Wold and the Board. Reunifying the lots, easements, property  lines, elevations and septic rules were discussed. 

The Board opened up the discussion to the public. The Board heard questions and comments  from Carl Olson and Jill Martinson. 

Mio read three letters into the record: one from Vic/Jeri Beckel, one from Tony/Patty Beckel and  one from Brent Mason of the MN DNR. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded 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: Scott Wold Date: February 6, 2019 Parcel #: 19.21.13.021 Variance Application #: 19-01V 

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 ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? _Does not meet standards for buildable  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? __Housing site__________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Wetland /special protection________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Wetland_______________________ 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? _Lot standards/special protection_______ 

Condition(s):  

_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) DENIED ( x ) 

February 6, 2019 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to deny the request. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of  Adjustments. 

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #19-02CU by Jerry and  Luann Hennum: A tract of land lying in in Government Lot 1 and in the Southeast  Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE¼NW¼), Section Twenty-eight (28), Township  One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Lake of the Woods  County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 24.28.21.030. Applicant is requesting a Conditional  Use Permit as required by Section 401-B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to allow a commercial business consisting of a short-term vacation rental  in a Residential District (R1). 

Mio asked Mrs. Diana Hennum (Daughter-in-law) to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mrs. Hennum explained that they have a guest house on their property that they would like to  rent out when they are not there. 

Discussion ensued between Mrs. Hennum and the Board. The Board asked about how long the  house has been rented for and Mrs. Hennum answered that they had been renting since  September. House size/occupancy, lot line locations and septic were discussed. 

Mio read two letters into the record: one from the Minnesota Department of Health and the other  from Scott Schmisek. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed to the Findings  of Facts.

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

Name of Applicant: Jerry & Luann Hennum Date: February  6, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land lying in in Government Lot 1 and in the Southeast  Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE¼NW¼), Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) – Parcel ID# 24.28.21.030. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-B of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of  transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Residential District (R1). 

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use  Plan? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Growth corridor________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Must meet MDH/County requirements______________________ 

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

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

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

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? _State Hwy 172_________________________________________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? _Residential____________________________________________ 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES ( ) 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? _Must meet MDH requirements_____________________________ 

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

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Must meet MDH requirements____________________________ 

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and  numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?  

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __No change/adequate____________________________________ 

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 ( x ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___None planned________________________________________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __On site______________________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __1) Survey site to make sure all buildings within  lot lines. 2) Meet all MDH requirements. 3) CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property. 4)  Lodging tax for LOW County must be paid retro to 9/20/18___________________________ 

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 ( )

February 6, 2018 _______________________________________  Date Tom Mio  Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  Motion made by McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Head.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

With no further business for the Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning  Commission.  

Adjournment: M/S/P

February 6, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on February 6, 2019 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

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

Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 9, 2019 

M/S/P Marhula/McFarlane 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Board of Adjustments – New Business 

Consideration of after-the-fact Variance #19-01V by Scott Wold: A tract of land  in the NE¼ of the SE¼, Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.21.13.021. Applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance from Section 4.1.4 of the Lake of the Woods County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System  Ordinance and Section 502.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to  allow the applicant to create an after- the-fact a non-conforming lot with less than the  required 100’ of frontage on Bostic Creek and without 2 sites for a standard septic  system in an area that is zoned as Special Protection (SP). 

Mio asked Mr. Wold to come to the table and explain his request. 

Mr. Wold explained that he would like to build a seasonal cabin on the property and eventually  build pole barn for storage. He plans to use it primarily for ice fishing in the winter, it will not be  a residence. He explained that he was originally planning to purchase the entire 10-acre tract but  Beckels purchased the entire lot and he purchased a portion of it, not realizing that splitting the  lot would change what he was able to do on the lot. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Wold and the Board. Reunifying the lots, easements, property  lines, elevations and septic rules were discussed. 

The Board opened up the discussion to the public. The Board heard questions and comments  from Carl Olson and Jill Martinson. 

Mio read three letters into the record: one from Vic/Jeri Beckel, one from Tony/Patty Beckel and  one from Brent Mason of the MN DNR. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded 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: Scott Wold Date: February 6, 2019 Parcel #: 19.21.13.021 Variance Application #: 19-01V 

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 ( ) NO ( x ) and Why or why not? _Does not meet standards for buildable  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? __Housing site__________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Wetland /special protection________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Wetland_______________________ 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? _Lot standards/special protection_______ 

Condition(s):  

_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) DENIED ( x ) 

February 6, 2019 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by McFarlane to deny the request. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of  Adjustments. 

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #19-02CU by Jerry and  Luann Hennum: A tract of land lying in in Government Lot 1 and in the Southeast  Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE¼NW¼), Section Twenty-eight (28), Township  One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Lake of the Woods  County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 24.28.21.030. Applicant is requesting a Conditional  Use Permit as required by Section 401-B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to allow a commercial business consisting of a short-term vacation rental  in a Residential District (R1). 

Mio asked Mrs. Diana Hennum (Daughter-in-law) to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mrs. Hennum explained that they have a guest house on their property that they would like to  rent out when they are not there. 

Discussion ensued between Mrs. Hennum and the Board. The Board asked about how long the  house has been rented for and Mrs. Hennum answered that they had been renting since  September. House size/occupancy, lot line locations and septic were discussed. 

Mio read two letters into the record: one from the Minnesota Department of Health and the other  from Scott Schmisek. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceed to the Findings  of Facts.

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

Name of Applicant: Jerry & Luann Hennum Date: February  6, 2019 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land lying in in Government Lot 1 and in the Southeast  Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE¼NW¼), Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) – Parcel ID# 24.28.21.030. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-B of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of  transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Residential District (R1). 

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use  Plan? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Growth corridor________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Must meet MDH/County requirements______________________ 

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

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

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

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? _State Hwy 172_________________________________________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? _Residential____________________________________________ 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES ( ) 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? _Must meet MDH requirements_____________________________ 

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

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Must meet MDH requirements____________________________ 

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and  numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?  

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __No change/adequate____________________________________ 

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 ( x ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___None planned________________________________________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __On site______________________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __1) Survey site to make sure all buildings within  lot lines. 2) Meet all MDH requirements. 3) CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property. 4)  Lodging tax for LOW County must be paid retro to 9/20/18___________________________ 

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 ( )

February 6, 2018 _______________________________________  Date Tom Mio  Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  Motion made by McFarlane to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Head.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

With no further business for the Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning  Commission.  

Adjournment: M/S/P

January 9, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on January 9, 2019 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken  Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane, Dave Marhula and Ed Arnesen. Others present were: Land and  Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 5, 2018 

M/S/P McFarlane/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-01CU by MLK Holding Company  Inc.: The West 100 feet of the W½NE¼; The East 100 feet of the West 200 feet of  the South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; The East 200 feet of the West 400 feet of the  South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; the W½NE¼ Less Deeded, all within Section  Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two  (32) West, and the SW¼SE¼ less the West 100 feet in Section Thirteen (13),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID#s:  19.24.12.010, 19.24.12.011, 19.24.12.020, 19.24.12.000 and 19.13.43.000. Applicant  is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a winter access road to Lake of the  Woods; storage shed for off-season equipment storage and storage of fish houses in a  Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).  

Mio asked Mr. Kinsella to come to the table and explain his request.  

Mr. Kinsella explained that he would like to operate an ice road for their clients who stay at his  resort, Border View Lodge. They have increased business and bought Wildwood Inn, bow called  Settlers Point, as overflow to increase business. He explained that equipment and work wise  allowing clients to use their own wheel houses on Border View Lodge’s existing road. The will  only take wheel houses by reservation and are planning to limit it to 15-18 wheel houses at a  time. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Kinsella and the Board. Fish house storage, accommodating  changing client needs, road logistics and garbage volume were discussed.  

Mio read a letter into the record from Gary Moeller opposing the request. 

Several members of the public expressed concerns about the road, current/future use of Lake of  the Woods and the health of the fishery.  

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the  Findings of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: MLT&T, LLC and MLK Holding Company Inc. Date: January 9,  2019 

Location/Legal Description: The West 100 feet of the W½NE¼; The East 100 feet of the West 200  feet of the South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; The East 200 feet of the West 400 feet of the South 233  feet of the SW¼NE¼; the W½NE¼ Less Deeded, all within Section Twenty-four (24), Township  One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, and the SW¼SE¼ less the West  100 feet in Section Thirteen (13), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two  (32) – Parcel ID#s: 19.24.12.010, 19.24.12.011, 19.24.12.020, 19.24.12.000 and 19.13.43.000. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a winter access road to Lake of the Woods;  storage shed for off-season equipment storage and storage of fish houses in a Rural Residential Zoning  District (R2). 

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use  Plan? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Resort Development Area________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Adding to existing road and monitored by applicant____________ 

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______________________________________________ 

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? _Cannot access from 172, ice road access already exists_________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Rural residential_______________________________________ 

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

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___See conditions_______________________________________ 

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) Signage to include wordage that road is for private use of Border View Lodge only. Not a  public access 

2) Limited to 18 wheelhouse clients 

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 ( ) 

January 9, 2019 _________________________________  Date Tom Mio  Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Horntvedt. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission.  Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head, meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. 

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

January 9, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on January 9, 2019 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken  Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane, Dave Marhula and Ed Arnesen. Others present were: Land and  Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 5, 2018 

M/S/P McFarlane/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-01CU by MLK Holding Company  Inc.: The West 100 feet of the W½NE¼; The East 100 feet of the West 200 feet of  the South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; The East 200 feet of the West 400 feet of the  South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; the W½NE¼ Less Deeded, all within Section  Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two  (32) West, and the SW¼SE¼ less the West 100 feet in Section Thirteen (13),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID#s:  19.24.12.010, 19.24.12.011, 19.24.12.020, 19.24.12.000 and 19.13.43.000. Applicant  is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a winter access road to Lake of the  Woods; storage shed for off-season equipment storage and storage of fish houses in a  Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).  

Mio asked Mr. Kinsella to come to the table and explain his request.  

Mr. Kinsella explained that he would like to operate an ice road for their clients who stay at his  resort, Border View Lodge. They have increased business and bought Wildwood Inn, bow called  Settlers Point, as overflow to increase business. He explained that equipment and work wise  allowing clients to use their own wheel houses on Border View Lodge’s existing road. The will  only take wheel houses by reservation and are planning to limit it to 15-18 wheel houses at a  time. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Kinsella and the Board. Fish house storage, accommodating  changing client needs, road logistics and garbage volume were discussed.  

Mio read a letter into the record from Gary Moeller opposing the request. 

Several members of the public expressed concerns about the road, current/future use of Lake of  the Woods and the health of the fishery.  

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the  Findings of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: MLT&T, LLC and MLK Holding Company Inc. Date: January 9,  2019 

Location/Legal Description: The West 100 feet of the W½NE¼; The East 100 feet of the West 200  feet of the South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; The East 200 feet of the West 400 feet of the South 233  feet of the SW¼NE¼; the W½NE¼ Less Deeded, all within Section Twenty-four (24), Township  One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, and the SW¼SE¼ less the West  100 feet in Section Thirteen (13), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two  (32) – Parcel ID#s: 19.24.12.010, 19.24.12.011, 19.24.12.020, 19.24.12.000 and 19.13.43.000. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a winter access road to Lake of the Woods;  storage shed for off-season equipment storage and storage of fish houses in a Rural Residential Zoning  District (R2). 

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use  Plan? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Resort Development Area________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Adding to existing road and monitored by applicant____________ 

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______________________________________________ 

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? _Cannot access from 172, ice road access already exists_________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Rural residential_______________________________________ 

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

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___See conditions_______________________________________ 

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) Signage to include wordage that road is for private use of Border View Lodge only. Not a  public access 

2) Limited to 18 wheelhouse clients 

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 ( ) 

January 9, 2019 _________________________________  Date Tom Mio  Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Horntvedt. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission.  Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head, meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. 

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

December 5, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on December 5, 2018 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Gerald  Levasseur, Ken Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane and Dave Marhula. Members absent: Ed Arnesen.  Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund, Akiko Bragdon.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 7, 2018 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

Consideration of Variance Application #18-10V by Hooper Creek Investments,  LLC: A tract of land in Government Lot 1, Section Eighteen (18), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Lake of the Woods  County, Minnesota – Parcel ID #24.18.12.000. Applicant is requesting a Variance as  required by Section 501.2.3 of the Lake of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow the  applicant to create a single non-conforming lot less than 5 acres in size without  

platting within the shoreland area of the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an  

Agricultural River segment. 

Mio asked the representative from Hooper Creek Investments. LLC to come to the table and  explain the request.  

Mr. Ney explained that they would like to sell the house alone, without the rest of the property.  Rainy River lot size, lot topography, current lot lines, and future development plans were  discussed. 

A neighboring property owner asked questions about the proposed project, wondering what  exactly the plan for the property are. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded 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: Hooper Creek Investments, LLC Date: December 5, 2018 

Parcel #: 24.18.12.000 Variance Application #: 18-10V 

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? Proposed lot size exceeds minimum lot  requirement for a platted lot. 

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 is between two ravines and future  development is proposed. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot Size/Shape/Location 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? It remains the same. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Proposed shape and layout 

Condition(s): Tract B cannot be further Subdivided. 

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 ( ) 

December 5, 2018  

__________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by McFarlane to approved the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Head.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn of the Board of  Adjustments. Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula, meeting adjourned. Mio opened the  Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-12CU by Stevan Helmstetter: The  West 990’ of the NE¼NW¼, Section Thirty-one (31), Township One Hundred Sixty three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID# 14.31.21.010. 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 commercial business consisting of  a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential District (R2). 

Mio asked Mr. Helmstetter to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Helmstetter explained that he would like to rent out his home since he has since moved out  of the area and does not want to sell the home yet.  

Discussion ensured between the Commission and Mr. Helmstetter. Lot layout, structures and  neighboring properties were discussed. 

Mio asked the Board if they had further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the Findings  of Facts.  

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

Name of Applicant: _Stevan Helmstetter____________________________ Date: _12-5- 18________ 

Location/Legal Description: The West 990’ of the NE¼NW¼, Section Thirty-one (31), Township  One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID#  14.31.21.010____________ 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of  transient short-term rental of an existing structure 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? Still residential.

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

Why or why not? No change. 

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

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

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) 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? No change. 

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? See conditions. 

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? Vegetation in place. 

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? No signage planned. 

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

 YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? On site. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1) Check septic system to standards. 

2) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) expires on sale of transfer of ownership. 

3) Must meet Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) specs. 

4) Collect and submit any lodging taxes to Lake of the Woods County. 

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 ( ) 

December 5, 2108 

_____________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Head to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further items for consideration before the Planning Commission, Mio entertained a  motion to adjourn.  

Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt, meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

December 5, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on December 5, 2018 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Gerald  Levasseur, Ken Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane and Dave Marhula. Members absent: Ed Arnesen.  Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund, Akiko Bragdon.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 7, 2018 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

Consideration of Variance Application #18-10V by Hooper Creek Investments,  LLC: A tract of land in Government Lot 1, Section Eighteen (18), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Lake of the Woods  County, Minnesota – Parcel ID #24.18.12.000. Applicant is requesting a Variance as  required by Section 501.2.3 of the Lake of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow the  applicant to create a single non-conforming lot less than 5 acres in size without  

platting within the shoreland area of the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an  

Agricultural River segment. 

Mio asked the representative from Hooper Creek Investments. LLC to come to the table and  explain the request.  

Mr. Ney explained that they would like to sell the house alone, without the rest of the property.  Rainy River lot size, lot topography, current lot lines, and future development plans were  discussed. 

A neighboring property owner asked questions about the proposed project, wondering what  exactly the plan for the property are. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded 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: Hooper Creek Investments, LLC Date: December 5, 2018 

Parcel #: 24.18.12.000 Variance Application #: 18-10V 

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? Proposed lot size exceeds minimum lot  requirement for a platted lot. 

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 is between two ravines and future  development is proposed. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot Size/Shape/Location 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? It remains the same. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Proposed shape and layout 

Condition(s): Tract B cannot be further Subdivided. 

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 ( ) 

December 5, 2018  

__________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by McFarlane to approved the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Head.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn of the Board of  Adjustments. Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula, meeting adjourned. Mio opened the  Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-12CU by Stevan Helmstetter: The  West 990’ of the NE¼NW¼, Section Thirty-one (31), Township One Hundred Sixty three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID# 14.31.21.010. 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 commercial business consisting of  a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential District (R2). 

Mio asked Mr. Helmstetter to come to the table and explain the request.  

Mr. Helmstetter explained that he would like to rent out his home since he has since moved out  of the area and does not want to sell the home yet.  

Discussion ensured between the Commission and Mr. Helmstetter. Lot layout, structures and  neighboring properties were discussed. 

Mio asked the Board if they had further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the Findings  of Facts.  

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

Name of Applicant: _Stevan Helmstetter____________________________ Date: _12-5- 18________ 

Location/Legal Description: The West 990’ of the NE¼NW¼, Section Thirty-one (31), Township  One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID#  14.31.21.010____________ 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of  transient short-term rental of an existing structure 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? Still residential.

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

Why or why not? No change. 

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

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

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) 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? No change. 

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? See conditions. 

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? Vegetation in place. 

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? No signage planned. 

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

 YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? On site. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1) Check septic system to standards. 

2) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) expires on sale of transfer of ownership. 

3) Must meet Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) specs. 

4) Collect and submit any lodging taxes to Lake of the Woods County. 

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 ( ) 

December 5, 2108 

_____________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Head to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further items for consideration before the Planning Commission, Mio entertained a  motion to adjourn.  

Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt, meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

November 7, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on November 7, 2018 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Gerald  Levasseur, Ken Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane and Dave Marhula. Members absent: Ed Arnesen.  Others present were: Assistant Zoning Administrator Maranda Dahl.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 3, 2018 

M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-11CU by Cyrus Resort That part of  the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty (21),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, lying  and being West of the center of the channel of Bostic Creek, parcel ID# 19.21.31.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic  yards of material within the shoreland area of Bostic Creek. 

Mio asked the representative from Cyrus Resort to come to the table and explain the request. 

Mr. Hammond explained that the resort would like to fill in their pool, pour a concrete slab over  it and turn it into a basketball court. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Hammond. Amount of fill and filling process  were discussed.  

Mio asked the Board if they had further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the Findings  of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: Cyrus Resort Date: November 7, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter  (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-

two (32) West, lying and being West of the center of the channel of Bostic Creek, parcel ID#  19.21.31.000. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Bostic Creek. 

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___________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Safer for resort guests and chemical storage__________________ 

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? _____________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) Why or why not? __No change___________________________________________ 

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? _____________________________________________________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Recreational use________________________________________ 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _The pool was there______________________________________ 

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: __Complete by 12/21/2019____________  

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 ( ) 

November 7, 2018 _____________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning  

Commission 

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by McFarlane. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

With no further items for consideration before the Planning Commission, Mio entertained a  motion to adjourn.  

Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head, meeting adjourned at 7:09 p.m.  

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

November 7, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on November 7, 2018 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Gerald  Levasseur, Ken Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane and Dave Marhula. Members absent: Ed Arnesen.  Others present were: Assistant Zoning Administrator Maranda Dahl.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 3, 2018 

M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-11CU by Cyrus Resort That part of  the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty (21),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, lying  and being West of the center of the channel of Bostic Creek, parcel ID# 19.21.31.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic  yards of material within the shoreland area of Bostic Creek. 

Mio asked the representative from Cyrus Resort to come to the table and explain the request. 

Mr. Hammond explained that the resort would like to fill in their pool, pour a concrete slab over  it and turn it into a basketball court. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Hammond. Amount of fill and filling process  were discussed.  

Mio asked the Board if they had further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the Findings  of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: Cyrus Resort Date: November 7, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter  (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-

two (32) West, lying and being West of the center of the channel of Bostic Creek, parcel ID#  19.21.31.000. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Bostic Creek. 

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___________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Safer for resort guests and chemical storage__________________ 

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? _____________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) Why or why not? __No change___________________________________________ 

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? _____________________________________________________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Recreational use________________________________________ 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _The pool was there______________________________________ 

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: __Complete by 12/21/2019____________  

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 ( ) 

November 7, 2018 _____________________________________ 

 Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning  

Commission 

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by McFarlane. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

With no further items for consideration before the Planning Commission, Mio entertained a  motion to adjourn.  

Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head, meeting adjourned at 7:09 p.m.  

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

October 3, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on October 3, 2018 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Gerald Levasseur and Dave Marhula. Members absent: Tom Mio, Reed McFarlane and Ed  Arnesen. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Marhula/Levasseur 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 5, 2018 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

None 

Board of Adjustments – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-07V by Jason Thomson and Steven  Lindgren: Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Walleye Retreat Subdivision in Section Twenty-one  (21), Township One Hundred-Sixty-Two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Lake  of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.60.01.060 and 19.60.01.070. Applicant  is requesting a Variance from Section 501.2. of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to allow applicant to create a Non-Riparian duplex lot which will not meet the required 80,000 square feet within the shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the  Woods is a General Development Lake.  

Horntvedt asked Mr. Thompson to come to the table and explain their request.  

Mr. Thompson explained that they would like to place a mobile home on their lot as a cabin for  their children and grandchildren. It would be used seasonally.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Thompson. Septic system, lot square footage,  width requirements and neighboring lots were discussed.  

Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Thompson, hearing none  Horntvedt proceeded 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: Jason Thomson, Steven Lindgren Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 19.60.01.070 Variance Application #: 18-07V 

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result in a practical  difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon consideration of the following  criteria: 

1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods County  Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Shoreland 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? __Shoreland Area______________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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? _Remain Seasonal Use____________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ____Lot size____________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

Condition(s): __Westerly 115’ of Lot 7 to be under common ownership with lot 6  

________________________________________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) 

 October 3, 2018 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Acting Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions.  

Motions seconded by Head.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

Consideration of Variance Application #1808V by Steven Cyrus: A tract of land  in the NE ¼ of the NW ¼, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.28.21.040. Applicant is  requesting a Variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a structure and a Type 1 septic system  closer than the required 100’ setback to Bostic Creek. The Bostic Creek is a Tributary  River Segment. 

Horntvedt asked Mr. Cyrus to come to the table and explain his request.  

Mr. Cyrus explained that he wants to place a trailer house on his property closer than the 100’  setback because of the lot size, shape and location of other structures on the lot and neighboring  lots. He believes the septic system will most likely meet the 100’ setback. The closest point of  the trailer house would be approximately 66’. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Cyrus. The current structure, septic system and  well were discussed. 

Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Cyrus, hearing none  Horntvedt proceeded to the Findings of Fact.  

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Steven and Deborah Cyrus Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 19.28.21.040 Variance Application #: 18-08V 

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will  result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon  consideration of the following criteria: 

1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the  Woods County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Shoreland and 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? ___No 

Change______________________________________________________________ 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? __No 

Change_____________________________________________________________ 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot  

Size_________________________________________________________________ Condition(s): __Mobile home location as per drawing as of this date 

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 ( ) 

October 3, 2018 

___________________________________ 

Date Ken Horntvedt Acting Chair, Board of  

Adjustment 

Motion made by Levasseur to approve with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

Consideration of Variance Application #18-09V by 218 Lake Properties LLC:  Lots 19 and 20, Wabanica Beaches Subdivision, Section twelve (12), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West with parcel ID  #23.51.00.190. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a structure  closer than the required 100’ setback to Wabanica Bay and the required 20’ setback to  the Right-of-Way. Wabanica Bay if a Tributary River Segment.

Horntvedt asked Mr. Fitzgerald to come to the table and explain his request. 

Mr. Fitzgerald explained that he wants to place a new cabin on the lots as close to the road as  possible, in line with the other cabins. Due to lot depth, the new cabin would encroach on the  100’ setback. They are placing a septic system and drilling a new well.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Fitzgerald. Road right-of-way setbacks were  discussed. 

Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Fitzgerald, hearing none  Horntvedt proceeded to the Findings of Fact.  

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: 218 Lake Properties, LLC Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 23.51.00.190 Variance Application #: 18-09V 

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will  result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon  consideration of the following criteria: 

2. 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? ___Shoreland Location, 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? __No Change ______________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot Size_________________________ 

6. 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? _No Change________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot Size_________________________ Condition(s): __Location of new structure as per submitted drawing. _______________________ 

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 ( ) 

October 3, 2018 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt Acting Chair, Board of  

Adjustment 

Motion made by Levasseur to approve with conditions.  

Motions seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further business for the Board, Horntvedt entertained a motion to adjourn of the Board  of Adjustments. Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head, meeting adjourned. Horntvedt opened the  Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-09CU by Nels Holte: Lot 7, Block  6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One-Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID #19.69.06.070. Applicant is  

requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.D of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a Commercial  Planned Unit Development in a Commercial-Recreation District. 

Horntvedt asked Mr. Holte to come to the table and explain his request. 

Mr. Holte explained that he would like a Conditional Use to operate a small campground  consisting of five (5) lots. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Holte. Lot size, Dept. of Health requirements and  covenants and restrictions were discussed.  

Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Holte, hearing none  Horntvedt proceeded to the Findings of Fact.  

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

Name of Applicant: Nels Holte Date: October 3, 2018

Location/Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township  One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID# 19.69.06.070 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to create a Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting of a  seasonal camping/RV park with five full hook-ups. 

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? Commercial/Recreational District______________ 

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

Why or why not? _Meet Minnesota Department of Health Code_____________________ 

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 ( ) 

Why or why not? __No Change___________________________________________ 

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of  rivers or tributaries? 

YES ( ) 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? ___Existing Road________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __Commercial/Recreational__________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal  system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? 

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ____Mound system in place__________________________________ 

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? ___Existing Water and Sewer_______________________________ 

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 ( x ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ___________________________________________ 

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the  number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent  properties to the extent possible?  

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? _______________________________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? _Parking lot already there_____________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 3000 sq. ft required per lot. Must meet Minnesota  Department of Health standards  

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 ( )

 October 3, 2018 _____________________________________  Date Ken Horntvedt 

Acting Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Levasseur.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 18-10CU by Gary Grove: A tract of  land in the NW ¼ of the NW ¼, Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One-Hundred  Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West with parcel ID #14.29.22.010.  Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a commercial business  consisting of short-term vacation rental. 

Horntvedt asked Mr. Grove and Mrs. Heppner to come to the table and explain their request. 

They explained that they would like to rent out the property on AirBnb and VRBO since their  long-term rentals are moving out. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mrs. Heppner/Mr. Grove. Access to the residence and  parking were discussed. 

Horntvedt stated that there was a letter regarding this Conditional Use permit and read it into the  record. 

Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Grove and Mrs. Heppner,  hearing none Horntvedt proceeded to the Findings of Fact.  

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

Name of Applicant: Gary Grove Date: October 3, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: A 2-acre tract located in the NW ¼ NW ¼, Section Twenty-Nine  (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID#  14.29.22.010. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business  consisting of transient short-term rental of an existing structure 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? _Seasonal/ Recreational Area ______________________________ 

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

Why or why not? __No Change___________________________________________ 

9) 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? ______________________________________________________ 

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? __No Change___________________________________________ 

11) 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? ______________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? _Existing Road_________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ___Seasonal/Recreational________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _____________________________________________________ 

11) 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? ___Existing system_____________________________________

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __Existing Well and Sewer ________________________________ 

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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __Existing trees_________________________________________ 

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ____As per application___________________________________ 

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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __Existing parking______________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _Conditional use permit expires upon change  of ownership from Gary Grove. 

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 ( )

October 3, 2018 _____________________________________  Date Ken Horntvedt 

Acting Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Head to approve with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further items for consideration before the Planning Commission, Mio entertained a  motion to adjourn.  

Adjournment: M/S/P Head/Marhula, meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.  

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund