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 #18–08V 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

September 5, 2018

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

Chairman Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott  Head, Reed McFarlane, Gerald Levasseur and Dave Marhula. Members absent: Ken Horntvedt,  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: August 1, 2018 

M/S/P McFarlane/Levasseur 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustments 

New Business 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-06V by Leah Spee: Part of Lot 2 and all of  Lot 3, Block 2 of Woodland Estates in Section Thirteen (13), Township One-hundred  Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler), Lake of the Woods  County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 23.57.02.020. Applicant is requesting a variance from  Section 503.6 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the  construction of a dwelling that will not meet the required setback from the Ordinary High  Water Level of Wabanica Bay. Wabanica Bay is a Tributary River Segment. 

Mio asked Ms. Spee to come to the table and explain her request.  

Ms. Spee explained that based on where her shed is located and the desired location of a future  septic system, there is not enough room on the east side of the lot between the shed and the house  to pull in and park a boat. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Ms. Spee. Garage and house placement, lot size and  neighboring lots were discussed.  

Mio stated that there was a letter regarding this variance and read it into the record. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Ms. Spee, 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: Leah Spee Date: September 5, 2018 Parcel #: 23.57.02.020 Variance Application #: 18-06V 

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Residential Area_______________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official  control?  

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Diagonal lot lines, well and septic plans____ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __See #3_____________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ___Will not____________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

Condition(s): _House setback must be greater or equal to 100’ at NW corner and greater than or equal to 89’ at SW  corner, completed by 7/1/2020__________________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) 

_______9/5/18___________ ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

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 Marhula/McFarlane, meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

August 1, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on August 1, 2018 

Chairman Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott  Head, Reed McFarlane, Ken Horntvedt, Gerald Levasseur and Dave Marhula. Members absent:  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 Horntvedt/Head 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 11, 2018 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission: 

Old Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-07CU by S & M  Resorts – Shelia Mayer: Lots 2 & 3, Block 4 of Wheeler’s Point Plat in Section  Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31)  West (Wheeler), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID#  

19.52.04.020.Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section  401-B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to amend a prior  Conditional use permit (15-08CU) that placed a condition – “Valid for S & M Resorts  LLC, d.b.a Wheelers Point Resort” to allow rental cabin to be rented by potential new  owners of what is currently known as Wheelers Point Resort by conducting a commercial business consisting of a transient rental in a Residential District (R1).  The Rainy River is an agricultural river segment. 

Chairman Mio read a letter from Mrs. Mayer dated July 16, 2018 into the record. stating that she  is withdrawing her request for a Conditional Use Permit. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-08CU by JRF  Properties, LLC – Alan Fish: Lots 1-5, Block 1, Marina Drive Estates, Section  Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two  (32) West, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel IDs# 19.70.01.010  through 19.70.01.050. 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  operation of a commercial business consisting of a seasonal camping area/RV Park in  a Commercial-Recreation District. The proposed project area is non-shoreland. 

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

Mr. Fish explained that the County Attorney was going to review the Covenants and  Restrictions, he wasn’t sure if that has taken place yet. He also stated that he sent out proposed  revised Covenants and Restrictions. He has not heard from any other landowners in the  association as of now.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Fish. Covenants and Restrictions and zoning were  discussed. Mr. Stromlund informed the Board about zoning and allowable land use in Marina  Drive Estates.  

Mio stated that there were two letters regarding this property and read them into the record. Members of the public expressed concerns to the proposed campground.  

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

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

Name of Applicant: JRF Properties, LLC Date: August 1, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: Lots 1-5, Block 1, Marina Drive Estates, Section Thirty-six (36),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel IDs#  19.70.01.010; 19.70.01.020; 19.70.01.030; 19.70.01.040; 19.70.01.050. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to create a Planned Unit Development consisting of a seasonal  camping/RV park with twenty-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? _In County growth corridor and zoned commercial_____________ 

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

Why or why not? _Has to meet State standards_______________________________ 

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? __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? ___Roads exists_________________________________________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Zoned commercial, adjoining campground___________________ 

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? __Meet State approval____________________________________ 

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? ___Must meet State approval_______________________________ 

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 required_________________________________________

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? __Will meet State requirements_____________________________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __On-site parking________________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: Must meet density requirements, must meet Dept.  of Health standards, completed by 12/31/2019. 

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 ( ) August 1, 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 Horntvedt 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 McFarlane/Head, meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m.

July 11, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on July 11, 2018 

Chairman Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Steve  Levasseur, Scott Head, Reed McFarlane, Ken Horntvedt, Gerald Levasseur and Dave Marhula.  Members absent: 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 Horntvedt/S. Levasseur 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 6, 2018 

M/S/P S. McFarlane/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission: 

Old Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-06CU by Ruth  Brunkhorst: Lot 3, Block 2, Boundary Commission Plat #1, Section 8, Township 163  North, Range 34 West (Lakewood), lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID#  14.53.02.030. 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 short-term vacation rental in a Residential District (R1). Lake of  the Woods is a General Development Lake.  

Chairman Mio read a letter from Mrs. Brunkhorst dated June 19, 2018 into the record stating that  she is withdrawing her request for a Conditional Use Permit. 

New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-07CU by S & M  Resorts – Shelia Mayer: Lots 2 & 3, Block 4 of Wheeler’s Point Plat in Section  Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31)  West (Wheeler), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID#  

19.52.04.020.Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section  401-B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to amend a prior  Conditional use permit (15-08CU) that placed a condition – “Valid for S & M Resorts  LLC, d.b.a Wheelers Point Resort” to allow rental cabin to be rented by potential new  owners of what is currently known as Wheelers Point Resort by conducting a commercial business consisting of a transient rental in a Residential District (R1).  The Rainy River is an agricultural river segment.

Mio asked Mrs. Mayer to come to the table and explain her request. 

Mrs. Mayer explained that she would like to clean up the language in the paperwork so the new  buyers of the resort would still be able to rent out those cabins.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mrs. Mayer. The previous Conditional Use conditions  were discussed. 

Members of the public voiced comments and concerns about this request. It was brought up that  S & M Resorts, LLC will continue to be the owner of the property, since the new owners are  entering into a Contract for Deed which would potentially negate the need to change the  Conditional Use condition at this time.  

Motion made by G. Levasseur to table the request until the August 1, 2018 Planning  Commission meeting. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-08CU by JRF Properties,  LLC – Alan Fish: Lots 1-5, Block 1, Marina Drive Estates, Section Thirty-six (36),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Lake of the  Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel IDs# 19.70.01.010 through 19.70.01.050. 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 operation of a commercial business  consisting of a seasonal camping area/RV Park in a Commercial-Recreation District. The  proposed project area is non-shoreland. 

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

Mr. Fish explained that he purchased these lots, which are zoned commercial and residential,  some of which he is placing houses on but some of the lots are small for individual residential  units. He feels the smaller lots are better suited for seasonal RV sites. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Fish. Density, length of rentals, signage and septic  were discussed. 

Mio stated that there was a letter regarding this property and read it into the record. 

Members of the public expressed concerns about this request. Covenants and restrictions  regarding commercial use of the lots was brought up by neighboring landowners. 

Motion made by McFarlane to table the request until the August 1, 2018 Planning  Commission meeting. 

Motion seconded by S. Levasseur. 

– Consideration of Petition to Amend the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance Application #18-01ZC by Gregg Hennum: A tract in NW corner of  Gov. Lot 1, less deeded, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.25.21.010. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Residential District (R1) to a Commercial Recreation District to allow applicant to establish a  Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting of an RV Campground/Park. 

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

Mr. Hennum explained that he has a long-term (three to five years) plan to create a campground  on his property and requires a zone change for that lot to make that a reality.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Hennum. Number of lots, fences, buffers and  sewage disposal were discussed.  

Mio stated that there were two letters regarding this property and read them into the record. Members of the public expressed concerns to the proposed zone change of this property. 

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

Lake of the Woods County  

Rezoning 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Gregg Hennum Date: July 11, 2018 Location/Legal Description: A tract in NW corner of Gov. Lot 1, less deeded Current Zoning Classification: Residential Proposed: Commercial-Recreation Parcel Number(s): 19.25.21.010 Application Number: 18-01ZC 

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

1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive  Land Use Plan? X Yes ___No Comments: Commercial expansion in a resort area/growth corridor. 

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

X Yes ___No 

Comments: Adjacent to other businesses/CUP. 

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

 ___Yes X No Comments: Remains resort area. 

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

X Yes ___No 

Comments: Increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic, private water and sewer system. 

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

X Yes ___No 

Comments: Electric and phone – private water and sewer, other county services in place. 

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement  of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zoning district? 

 ___Yes X No Comments: No change. 

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

 ___Yes X No Comments: 

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

neighborhood? 

 ___Yes X No Comments: Can’t determine – mixed residential/commercial/CUP area. 

Conditions: Must maintain a 30 foot natural state vegetative visual buffer along Burr Oak Road.

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

_____________________________________ July 11, 2018 Tom Mio Date Chair, Planning Commission 

The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners hereby adopt the above findings of  fact of the Lake of the Woods Planning Commission WITH / WITHOUT modification(s) and  DENY / APPROVE the application for a zone change WITH / WITHOUT special conditions. 

_____________________________________ ____________________ Ed Arnesen Date 

Chair, County Board of Commissioners 

Motion made by Marhula to approve the zone change request. 

Motion seconded by G. Levasseur. 

Mio, McFarlane, Horntvedt, Marhula, G. Levasseur, Head in favor. S. Levasseur opposed.  Motion passed. 

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 9:46 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

June 6, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on June 6, 2018 

Chairman Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Steve  Levasseur, Scott Head, Reed McFarlane, Ken Horntvedt and Dave Marhula. Members absent:  Gerald Levasseur 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/Horntvedt 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 2, 2018 

M/S/P S. Levasseur/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– Horntvedt indicated that he would abstain from the vote regarding Variance #18-02V 

Board of Adjustments: 

New Business 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-02V by Joshua Lessman: Lots 14 – 16 of  Wabanica Beaches Subdivision, Section 12, Township 161 North, Range 32 West  (Wabanica), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 23.51.00.140. Applicant  is requesting a Variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to allow construction of additions to an existing nonconforming structure that  will not meet the required setbacks from the Ordinary High-Water Level of Wabanica  Bay and the road right-of-way. Also, the applicant is requesting a Variance from Section  5.10 of the Lake of the Woods Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Ordinance to allow  the septic tank to be less than the required ten (10) feet from one of the additions.  Wabanica Bay is a Tributary River Segment. 

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

Mr. Lessman explained the position and dimensions of proposed structure additions and setback  distances of septic system. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Lessman. Structure height, septic systems and  number of bedrooms were discussed. 

Mio stated that there was a letter regarding the property and read the letter into the record. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Lessman, hearing none Mio  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: Josh Lessman Date: June 6, 2018 

Parcel #: 23.51.00.140 Variance Application #: 18-02V 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 (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential 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 size/waterfront/road. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? See #3. 

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

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

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

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

Condition(s): Septic must be up to code, completed by 12/31/2019. 

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 ( ) 

 June 6, 2018 

___________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, Horntvedt abstained, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-03V by Melvin Mollberg: Lot 8,  Block 1, River Oaks Subdivision, Section 1, Township 161 North, Range 32 West  (Wabanica), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID#23.52.01.080.  

Applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a structure at less than the required  one hundred (100) feet from the Ordinary High-Water Level of the Rainy River. The  Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment. 

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

Mr. Mollberg explained that he would like to build his home in line with his neighbors, closer  than the 100’ OHWL of the Rainy River. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Mollberg. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Mollberg, hearing none Mio  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: Melvin Mollberg Date: June 6, 2018 Parcel #: 23.52.01.080 Variance Application #: 18-03V 

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential 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? Houses on both sides are closer to the  OHW. 

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

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 layout based on adjoining structures. Condition(s): None 

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

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the  Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED (X) DENIED ( ) 

 June 6, 2018 

___________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request. 

Motions seconded by McFarlane. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-04V by Sportsman’s Eagle Ridge,  LLC (Gregg and Diana Hennum): A tract of land in Gov’t. Lot 8, Section 1,  Township 167 North, Range 33 West (Angle) Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota  – Parcel ID #06.01.44.021. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 501.2.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of a non conforming lot within the shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. The proposed non riparian lot is 60’ x 200’ and is for storage only, no sewer, water or bedrooms. Lake  of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

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

Mr. Hennum explained that property owners of Eagle Ridge would like additional storage and  there isn’t much room on their existing land for the storage capacity they would like. The  proposed structure’s dimensions and setbacks, easements and ownership were discussed. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Hennum, hearing none Mio  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: Sportsman’s Eagle Ridge, LLC Date: June 6, 2018  Parcel #: 06.01.44.000 Variance Application #: 18-04V 

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Allowing for joint storage units. 

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 when deeded to new owners. 3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot topography and cabin and septic layout. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? See #3. 

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

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

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

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

Condition(s): 

1) Easement must be addressed. 

2) Storage only.

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

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the  Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED (X) DENIED ( ) 

 June 6, 2018 

___________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Horntvedt to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, motion passed. 

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

Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/S. Levasseur, meeting adjourned.  

Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting.  

Planning Commission: 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-04CU by Dan  Crompton: That part of the South 500’ of the SE¼SW¼ lying westerly of Bostic  Creek except that part lying within Block 3, of Walleye Retreat Plat, in Section 21,  Township 162 North, Range 32 West (Wheeler), Lake of the Woods County,  Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.21.34.071. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use  Permit as required by Section 401-A of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to allow a commercial business consisting of boat dock rental slips in an  area that is zoned as Special Protection (SP). The Bostic Creek is a Tributary River  Segment. 

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

Mr. Crompton explained that he felt that his parcel does not need to be zoned Special Protection  and he would like to have the same option as his neighbors. He wants to add additional docks  and be allowed to rent dock slips. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Crompton. Number of slips and parking were discussed.

A member of the public expressed his opposition to the application. Additional discussion  ensued. 

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Daniel Crompton Date: June 6,  2018 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in of the South 500’ of the SE ¼ of SW ¼, lying  westerly of Bostic Creek, less platted, in Section 21, T-162N, R-32W (Wheeler). 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of boat  dock rental slips. 

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 area/shoreline location. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Addressed by DNR permit. 

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? Due to DNR permit. 

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? On the Bostic drainage. 

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

Why or why not? By DNR.

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

 YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? With conditions – address water access. 

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

 YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Yes, resort area. 

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

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

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with  Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance?  

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

 YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? With conditions. 

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other  hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)  requirements, has a permit been sought? 

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent  properties? 

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

 YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? With conditions. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) Allow only one additional dock tied to DNR Permit #2018-0380, dated April 20, 2018. 2) New dock not to extend past the current dock’s length (west of new dock’s location). 3) Conditional Use Permit expires when property is sold/transferred. 

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 ( ) 

 June 6, 2018 

_____________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by S. Levasseur. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-05CU by Riverbank  Marina, Inc. (Jack Stanhope): A tract of land in Section 36, Township 162 North,  Range 32 West (Wheeler), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID#  19.36.12.020. 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  operation of a commercial business consisting of a mobile home park and RV  Campground in a Commercial-Recreation District. The Rainy River is an Agricultural  River Segment. 

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

Mr. Stanhope explained that he would like to increase the capacity of the existing RV park.  Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Stanhope. Density and septic were discussed. 

A member of the public made a statement regarding support of project but concerns about  parking and road speed limits. 

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Riverbank Marina – Jack Stanhope Date: June 6, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32 with the parcel ID# 19.36.12.020. 

Project Proposal: 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 mobile home park and RV  campground in a Commercial-Recreation District. 

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land  Use Plan? 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Resort area/existing campground. 

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

Why or why not? Water and sewer upgrades and state requirements to be met. 

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? Vegetative cover changes will be minimized. 

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

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

 YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Access through existing roads. 

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

 YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Campground and marina.

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

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? Being addressed in plan. 

12) 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? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? See #10. 

14) 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? Existing marina. 

15) 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? ______________________________________________________ 

16) 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 marina. 

17) 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? ______________________________________________________ 

18) 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 is planned/road access.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: Must meet density requirements. 

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 ( ) 

 June 6, 2018 

_____________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by McFarlane. 

All in favor, motion passed. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-06CU by Ruth  Brunkhorst: Lot 3, Block 2, Boundary Commission Plat #1, Section 8, Township  163 North, Range 34 West (Lakewood), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 14.53.02.030. 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). Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Mio asked Mrs. Brunkhorst, along with Jason and Joanna Brunkhorst, to come to the table  and explain her request. 

Mr. Brunkhorst asked the Board to take no action on this application tonight so that they  can get more information from the community and the Board due to complaints that they  have recently received from their neighbors. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and the Brunkhorsts. Brunkhorst asked questions of  the Board and the Board stated concerns about parking, septic and space issues. 

Mio stated that there were four letters regarding this property and read them into the  record. 

Members of the public expressed concerns and opposition to the proposed rental of this  property.  

Motion made by Head to table the request until the July 11, 2018 Planning Commission  meeting.  

Motion seconded by Horntvedt. 

All in favor, motion passed.

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

Adjournment: 

M/S/P Head/Horntvedt, meeting adjourned at 9:50 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

May 2, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on May 2, 2018 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P McFarlane/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 4, 2018 

M/S/P G. S. Levasseur/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

  • Marhula indicated that he would abstain from the vote regarding Conditional Use #18- 08CU 

Planning Commission: 

  • New Business 
  • Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-02CU by Michael  Gamache: The S½SW ¼ of Section 33, Township 161 North, Range 31 West (Baudette),  Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel Number 24.33.33.000. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to allow the movement of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of  material to expand the clay pad and to stockpile clay, topsoil, granite, rock, sand and  gravel (earthen material) within the shoreland area of Kelly Creek while maintaining a  buffer. Also, the 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 renting storage containers and parking in a Rural Residential (R2)  Zoning District. 

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

Mr. Gamache explained that he would like to expand a pad currently on the property, stockpile  material on his pad and place storage containers on the property and rent them out. He explained  that parking is intended to be for large equipment (semi-trailers) that is in the area for large  projects.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Gamache. Buffers and drainage were discussed. 

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: _Michael Gamache Date: May 2, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: The South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section Thirty-three  (33), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31)  

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Sections 902 and 401-C of the Lake  of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to expand clay pad, stockpile earthen  materials within the shoreland are of Kelly Creek and rent storage containers and parking spaces.  

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? Allowing some commercial development. 

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

Why or why not? Drainage and parking issues addressed. 

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

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? Also addressed in conditions. 

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? In conditions. 

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

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. 

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

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 ( ) 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? In 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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Off County Road and parking on pad. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 1) Maintain 100’ buffer to Kelly Creek. 2)  Any area within the 100’ buffer needs to be sloped to a minimum of 4 to 1 and seeded with  perennial grasses. 3) Signage limited to one 8’x8’. 4) Existing drainage must be maintained.  

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( x ) Denied ( ) Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions.

Motion seconded by S. Lavasseur. 

All in favor, motion passed.  

  • Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-03CU by Grant &  Savanna Slick: A tract of land in Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred  Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) (Baudette), Lake of the Woods County,  Minnesota – parcel ID# 24.29.22.021. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit,  as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to  allow the operation of a commercial business consisting of transient short-term rental of  an existing structure within the shoreland area of the Winter Road River and in a Rural  Residential District (R2). The Winter Road River is a tributary river segment. 

Mio asked Mr. and Mrs. Slick to come to the table and explain their request. Mr. Slick explained that they would like to rent out their property as a short-term vacation rental.  Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. and Mrs. Slick. 

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Grant and Savanna Slick Date: May 2, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) 

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? Existing 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? ______________________________________________________ 

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 new access needed, access via Co Rd. 

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

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

Why or why not? Existing and vacation rental. 

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? In conditions. 

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? Not affected. 

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? In 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 ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change. 

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

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

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) Septic compliance inspection.  

2) Apply for State and Fed. ID Tax numbers and collect and pay lodging taxes.  3) CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property. 

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

Motion made by S. Lavasseur to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by McFarlane. 

All in favor, Marhula abstained, motion passed.  

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

Adjournment: 

M/S/P Head/McFarlane, meeting adjourned at 8:01 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

April 4, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on April 4, 2018 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 4, 2017 

M/S/P G. Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment: 

New Business 

– Consideration of a Variance Application 18-01V by MLK Holding Company, Inc.  (Mike Kinsella, Boarder View Lodge): A 5.92-acre tract in Govt. Lot 3 of Section  Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West (Wheeler). Parcel ID#19.24.41.010. Applicant is requesting a variance from section  503.5 and 603 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant  to replace an existing non-conforming platform with the same dimensions and at a setback  of forty-two (42) feet from the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River  Segment. 

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

Kinsella explained that his request was to make the platform smaller than the previous  platform that was there and to remove a raised area of the platform that has been a safety  hazard to the guests of the resort. 

Discussion ensured between the Board and Mr. Kinsella. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Kinsella, hearing none Mio  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 Mike Kinsella of Border View Lodge Date: April 4, 2018

Applicant:  

Parcel #: 19.24.41.010 Variance Application #: 18-01V 

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 ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not?  

Resort area, replacement of existing deck 

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?  

River frontage and setback (historical) 

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

See #3 

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

No Change 

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

Aesthetics, Safety 

Condition(s): 

1. Maintain original size of platform or smaller. 

2. Complete by 12/31/2018 

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

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the  Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1205 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance. 

Approved (X) Denied ( )

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Horntvedt. 

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

Adjournment:  

M/S/P G. Levasseur / Head, meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. 

Mio then entertained a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting.  Motion made by Marhula to open the Planning Commission meeting. 

The motion was seconded by Head. All in favor, motion passed. 

Planning Commission: 

  • New Business 
  • Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Application 18-01CU by Rollin and Julie  Bergman: The North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (N½ of  NE¼NE¼) of Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North,  Range Thirty-four (34) West (Lakewood) of the Fifth Principal Meridian in Minnesota,  according to the United States Government Survey thereof. Parcel ID# 14.25.11.000.  Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a commercial  business consisting of transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Rural  Residential District (R2). 

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

Discussion ensured between the Board and Mr. Bergman regarding concerns the board had  with the property. 

Mio stated that there was a letter regarding the property and read the letter into the record. 

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

Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission 

Findings of Fact and Decision 

Name of Applicant: Rollin and Julie Bergman Date: April 4, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: The North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter  (N½ of NE¼NE¼) of Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, 

Range Thirty-four (34) West (Lakewood) of the Fifth Principal Meridian in Minnesota, according  to the United States Government Survey thereof. Parcel ID# 14.25.11.000. 

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 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? Vacation renal area. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? On existing county road, driveway 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 ( ) 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? Septic exists.

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? Already exist. 

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? Not needed. 

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

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? Existing parking available. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: __________________________________ 

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

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

Motion made by Head to approve the request as presented. 

Motion seconded by S. Levasseur. 

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

Adjournment: 

M/S/P Horntvedt/S. Levasseur, meeting adjourned at 7:30 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