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

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio,  Marshall Nelson, Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Wes Johnson, and Monica Dohmen. The  following members were absent: District 5 vacant position. Others present were: Land and Water  Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve agenda- approved Marshall/ Dave. All in favor.  

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

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

Planning Commission: New Business 

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

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

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

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

X Yes ___No 

Comments: Change from R2 to R1 for platting. 

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

X Yes ___No 

Comments: Adjacent is R2. 

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

__ Yes X No 

Comments: Still R2. 

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

X Yes ___No 

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

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

X Yes ___No 

Comments: Easement will be addressed in plat. 

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

___Yes X No 

Comments: No change. 

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

X Yes ___No 

Comments: Increased residential and long-term vacation rental. 

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

neighborhood? 

___Yes X No 

Comments:

Conditions: None 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners adopt the above findings and DENY /  APPROVE the application for a zone change be WITH / WITHOUT conditions. Motion to approve- Dave/Marshall. All in favor.  

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-11CU by Paul Haugo: Lots 9 and 10, Block 1,  Wildwood North Subdivision, Section Nine (9), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID#: 18.50.01.090 and 18.50.01.100. Applicant is  requesting an After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) yards of material within the  shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) yards outside of the shore impact zone of Zippel Bay  of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a general development lake. 

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

Findings of Fact and Decision 

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

Why or why not? Shoreline protection.

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and  vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Removed trees, removed shoreland vegetation, and changed slope to shore. 

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

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing  vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? 

YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 

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

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Shoreline protection. 

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

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent  properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

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

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X ) Denied ( ) Motion to approve with conditions- Marshall/Wes. All in favor.  

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

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? River access/recreational. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

12) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing  vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? To follow DNR specs. 

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Private launch site. 

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

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Private launch. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) Follow DNR requirements for private launch. 

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to approve with conditions. Ken/Dave. All in favor.  

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-13CU by Nels Holte: Government Lot Three  (3), Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two North (162), Range Thirty-two  West (32) with Parcel ID# 19.17.24.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as  required by Section 902 of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten  (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose  of a rip rap project. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

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

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

Why or why not? Shoreline stabilization. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

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

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing  vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? DNR requirements. 

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Shoreland stabilization. 

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

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1) Follow DNR guidelines for riprap. 

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to approve with conditions- Dave/ Marshall. All in favor.  

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

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

Board of Adjustment: New Business 

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

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Provides property to two adjacent landowners. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condition(s): None 

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

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

APPROVED (X) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS ( ) DENIED ( ) Motion to approve- Dave/Wes. All in favor.  

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

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No further encroachment on river setback. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remains residential 

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

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

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

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

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

Condition(s): 

1) House must not encroach any closer to river. 

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

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

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

APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X) DENIED ( ) Motion to approve with conditions- Monica/Marshall. All in favor. 

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

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

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

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

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