October 2, 2024

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on October 2, 2024 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Dohmen. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 4, 2024- Motion to approve –Marhula/Dunnell. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Interim Use Permit #24-05IU by Brian Erickson: Lot Five (5) Boyd Addition, in Sections One (1) and Six (6), Township One hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) and  Thirty-one (31) West, respectively – Parcel ID# 23.54.00.000. Applicant is requesting an Interim Use  Permit as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a  short-term vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). The Rainy River is an  Agricultural River segment. 

Brian was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board  discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Brian Erickson Date: October 2, 2024 

Location/Legal Description: Lot Five (5), Boyd Addition Parcel Number: 23.54.00.050 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Sections 1106 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential (R1) Zoning  District. 

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

Why or why not? Resort area and property is located in the growth corridor. 

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

Explain? Applicant has met the criteria based upon the submitted application. 

3) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? Residential. 

4) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? Public road, Stanton Drive.

5) Has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the traffic and parking are to be addressed?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Explain? No change. 

6) Has the applicant provided a map adequately depicting locations of property lines, well and septic system  locations, accessory structures, parking areas, and shore recreational facilities? 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Explain? As per submitted application. 

7) Does the water test meet the Minnesota Department of Health drinking water standards? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Explain? The water test results are part of the submitted application. 

8) Has the applicant identified the maximum number of occupants? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? The maximum number of occupants is limited to four (4) individuals. 

9) Is the current SSTS compliant by evidence of a Certificate of Compliance and is the SSTS adequate to  accommodate the identified maximum occupancy? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? The septic system has a valid Certificate of Compliance and is sized for a 2-bedroom  dwelling. 

10) Has the applicant established quiet hours? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? The established quiet hours are from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. 

11) Has the applicant provided a floor plan which includes the number of bedrooms and all other sleeping  accommodations? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? See submitted application. 

12) Has the applicant provided an evacuation plan/fire safety protocol and have identified the locations of  smoke and Carbon Monoxide alarms and fire extinguishers? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? See submitted application. 

13) Has the applicant identified a local person and their contact information? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Explain? See submitted application. 

14) 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 ( ) 

Explain? No signage has been requested. 

15) Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Explain? No need for fencing and/or screening. 

The answers to the questions above, together with the facts supporting the answers and those other facts that  exist in the record, are hereby certified to be the Findings of the County Board of Commissioners. 

The specific reasons for denial or conditions of approval are as follows:

1. The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or transfer of the  property, whichever occurs first. 

2. The maximum occupancy is limited to four (4) individuals. 

3. The established quiet hours are from 10:00 pm to 8:00 am. 

4. A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. 

5. No on-street parking is allowed. 

6. If applicable, the applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 7. Local contact person and emergency numbers must be posted in the dwelling. 

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

October 2, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Mio. All in favor,  motion passed with conditions. 

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-04CU by Lyle and Pauline Longtin: That part of  Government Lot Three (3), Section Five (5), Township One hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range  Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID#14.05.31.040. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as  required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10)  cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of  repair/replacement of existing rock rip rap. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Lyle was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board  discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Lyle Longtin Date: October 2, 2024 

Location/Legal Description: That part of Government Lot 3, Section 5, Township 163N, Range 34W – Parcel  ID#14.05.31.040. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of repair/replacement of existing rock rip rap.

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 management. 

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Lake of the Woods. 

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 rock rip rap 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 2, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

Motion made by Mio to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dohmen. All in favor, motion  passed with conditions. 

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-05CU by Rocky Point Cabin, LLC: That part of  Government Lot Three (3), Section Five (5), Township One hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range  Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID#14.05.31.030. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as  required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10)  cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of  repair/replacement of existing rock rip rap. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Name of Applicant: Rocky Point Cabin, LLC %Brett Longtin Date: October 2, 2024 

Location/Legal Description: That part of Government Lot 3, Section 5, Township 163N, Range 34W – Parcel  ID#14.05.31.030. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of repair/replacement of existing rock rip rap. 

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 management. 

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

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 ( ) 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? Shoreline protection. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Lake of the Woods. 

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 ( ) 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 ( ) 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 ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Follow DNR rock rip rap 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 2, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

Motion made by Mio to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Marhula. All in favor, motion  passed with conditions. 

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-07CU by Wolverton Creek Outfitters, LLC: A  tract in Government Lot 5, Section Thirty-four (34), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168)  North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID#03.34.32.015. Applicant is requesting a  Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of  Lake of the Woods for the purpose of constructing a rock rip rap project. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

Name of Applicant: Wolverton Creek Outfitters, LLC Date: October 2, 2024 

Location/Legal Description: That part of Government Lot 5, Section 34, Township 168N, Range 33W – Parcel  ID#03.34.32.015. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of repair/replacement of existing rock rip rap. 

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 management. 

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

Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

15) 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? ____________________________________________________________________  

16) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

17) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

18) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

20) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Shoreline protection. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Lake of the Woods. 

12) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

17) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

18) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

19) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

22) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

23) 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? ____________________________________________________________________ 

24) 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? ___________________________________________________________________ 

25) 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: 

2. Follow DNR rock rip rap 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 2, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dunnell. All in favor,  motion passed with conditions. 

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

Motion to close the Planning Commission meeting made by Mio, 2nd by Dohmen. All in favor, passed. Motion to open Board of Adjustments made by Mio, 2nd by Marhula. All in favor, passed. Board of Adjustments – New Business 

– Consideration of Administrative Appeal #24-01A by Ryan, Tonya, Jeffrey, and Rachel  Albertson: The S½ of Government Lot Three (3) and the N ½ of Government Lot Four (4),  Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID # 28.07.32.010. Applicants are appealing an administrative order requiring the applicant  to adhere to the two-year timeframe to upgrade a septic system. 

Jeff and Rachel Albertson were present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed the information in the application. 

Name of Applicant: Rachel Albertson Date: October 2, 2024 Parcel #: 28.07.32.010 Variance Application #: 24-01A 

Reason for Appeal: Applicants are appealing an administrative order requiring the applicant to adhere to the  two-year timeframe to upgrade a septic system. 

Following discussion on the appeal, Mio made a motion, if the Albertson’s septic system is found to be non compliant it must be upgraded within two (2) years of the date of the failed inspection, with the following  conditions. 

1. There are no rights of appeal to the results of the finalizing inspection 

2. A refund will be granted for the fee of this appeal. 

3. The inspection is to be conducted by the Lake of the Woods County Land and Water Planning Office  with a representative of the Albertsons prior to November 1st, 2024. 

Motion was seconded by Dohmen. All in favor, motion passed with conditions. 

With no further business before the Board of Adjustments, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Dohmen. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM.

September 4, 2024

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on September 4, 2024 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 7, 2024- Motion to approve –Mio/Dohmen. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #24-04V by Kyle and Fallon Solie: A tract of land located in the NE¼SE¼ lying  Northerly of Highway 172 and Easterly of Hooper Creek in Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID# 24.18.41.000. Applicant is requesting a  variance from Section 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a  structure at less than the required 100-foot setback from the Hooper Creek. This portion of Hooper Creek is an  Agricultural River segment. 

Kyle was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board  discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Kyle Solie Date: September 4, 2024 Parcel #: 24.18.41.000 Variance Application #: 24-04V 

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? Growth Corridor. 

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? Size and shape of lot. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Size and shape of lot. 

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? Shape and size of lot. 

Condition(s): Construction restrictions based on submitted plan on file. 

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 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

 September 4, 2024 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Mio to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dunell. All in favor, motion  passed as presented. 

Motion to close the Board of Adjustment made by Dunnell, 2nd by Dohmen. All in favor, passed. Motion to open Planning Commission made by Mio, 2nd by Marhula. All in favor, passed. 1) Planning Commission – Old Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-03CU by Thomas Flaherty: Lot Six (6), Block One (1),  Rivards River Acres, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West  (Gudrid) – Parcel ID# 31.56.01.060. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902  of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within  the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for river access. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment. 

Tom was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board  discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Thomas Flaherty Date: September 4, 2024 Location/Legal Description: Lot Six (6), Block One (1), Rivards River Acres 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone  of the Rainy River for river access. 

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? Residential water frontage. 

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? Decrease sedimentation. 

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 to topography. 

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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? Rainy River. 

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. Erosion control blanket must be installed. 

2. Fabric under the rock. 

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

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

 September 4, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dunnell. All in favor,  motion carried. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-06CU by Timothy & Kristi Bjerk: Lot Eight (8), Block One  (1), Lake Shore Village, Section Six (6), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three  (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.59.01.080. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of 

material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for a rip rap repair project. Lake of the Woods is a  General Development Lake. 

Name of Applicant: Timothy & Kristi Bjerk Date: September 4, 2024 Location/Legal Description: Lot (8), Block One (1), Lakeshore Village Subdivision 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of repair/replacement of existing rock rip rap. 

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 repair. 

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? Eliminate shoreline erosion. 

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 ( ) 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? Residential. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Lake of the Woods.

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 ( ) 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 ( ) 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 ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Project does not include the jetty. 

2. Must follow DNR requirements 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 ( ) 

 September 4, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission

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

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Dohmen. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:59 PM.

August 7, 2024

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on August 7, 2024 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Marhula/Johnson. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 3, 2024- Motion to approve –Nelson/Marhula. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #24-03V by Zachary and Kristi Hasbargen: A tract of land located in the  SE¼SE¼ of Section Fifteen (15), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West  (Spooner) – Parcel ID# 30.15.41.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a structure at less than the required 100- foot setback from the Baudette River. The Baudette River is a Tributary River segment. 

Kristi Hasbargen was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The  board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Kristi Hasbargen Date: August 7, 2024 Parcel #: 30.15.41.000 Variance Application #: 24-03V 

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? Rural Residential. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change in use of property. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Meandering portion of Baudette River. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Meandering portion of Baudette River. 

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? Meandering portion of Baudette River. 

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 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

 August 7, 2024 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion made by Nelson to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dohmen. All in favor,  motion passed as presented. 

Motion to close the Board of Adjustment made by Nelson, 2nd by Johnson. All in favor, passed. Motion to open Planning Commission made by Dohmen, 2nd by Marhula. All in favor, passed. 

– Consideration of Interim Use Permit #24-04IU by Christopher and Ashley Olson: Lot Three (3), Block  One (1), Turgeon Estates in Section Twenty (20), Township One-hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range  Thirty-one (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID# 24.60.01.030. Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit as  required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term  vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). 

Chris Olson was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board  discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Christopher and Ashley Olson Date: August 7, 2024 Location/Legal Description: Lot Three (3), Block One (1), Turgeon Estates Parcel Number: 24.60.01.030 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential Zoning District (R1). 

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

Why or why not? In growth corridor. 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This includes the following  items: 

• Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • Fire extinguisher(s) 

• Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows 

• Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Per application. 

3) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Residential. 

4) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Public road, Noble Drive. 

5) Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the  increased traffic is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change. 

6) Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Per application. 

7) Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________ 

8) 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? ___________________________________________________________________ 

9) What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? 6 people. 

10) Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Per application. 

11) Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Per application. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):  The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or transfer of the property, whichever occurs first. 

X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application.

X The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application.

X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. X A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required.

X No on street parking is allowed. 

X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health 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 ( ) 

 August 7, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Nelson. All in favor,  motion carried. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-03CU by Thomas Flaherty: Lot Six (6), Block One (1),  Rivards River Acres, Section Eight (8), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West  (Gudrid) – Parcel ID# 31.56.01.060. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section  902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material  within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for river access. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River  segment. 

As Tom Flaherty was not present at the meeting, motion was made by Nelson to table the request until the  next meeting, 2nd by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Dohmen made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Nelson. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:42 PM.

July 3, 2024

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on July 3, 2024  

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Nelson/Johnson. All in favor.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 1, 2024- Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor.    

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #24-02V by Melvin Mollberg: Lot 8, Block 1, River Oaks Plat in Section  One (1), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wabanica) –  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 the construction of a garage at less than the required fifty  (50) foot setback from Oak Harbor Drive.  

Melvin Mollberg was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The  board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.  

Name of Applicant: Melvin Mollberg Date: July 3, 2024  

Location/ Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 1, River Oaks Plat in Section One (1), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wabanica) – Parcel ID# 23.52.01.080.  

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a garage at less than the required fifty (50) foot setback from  Oak Harbor Drive.  

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

a. YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Rural Residential. 

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

a. YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remain the same. 

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

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

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

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

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

a. YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remain the same. 

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

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

7) Condition(s): Must maintain 40’ setback from edge of ROW. 

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 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  

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

 July 3, 2024 ___________________________________   Date Ken Horntvedt  Chair, Board of Adjustment  

Motion made by Nelson to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dohmen. All in favor, motion  passed. 

Motion made by Mio and 2nd by Nelson to close Board of Adjustment meeting. All in favor, passed  Motion to open Planning Commission meeting by Mio 2nd by Marhula. All in favor, passed.  

Planning Commission – New Business  

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-02CU by Jeremy and Connie Grindeland: Lot Four  (4), Block One (1), Sandy Shores, Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163)  North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.55.01.040. Applicant is requesting a  Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance  to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods  for the purpose of repair/replacement of a boat ramp and repair/replacement of existing rock rip rap.  

Jeremy and Connie Grindeland were present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.  

Name of Applicant: Jeremy and Connie Grindeland Date: July 3, 2024    

Location/Legal Description: Lot Four (4), Block One (1), Sandy Shores, Section Twenty-one (21), Township  One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.55.01.040.  

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential Development  Zoning District (R2).  

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan?   YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? 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 ( ) 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 ( ) 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 of L.O.W. 

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: Must follow DNR requirements as applicable.  

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 ( ) 

 July 3, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Johnson. All in favor,  motion passed.  

– Consideration of Interim Use Permit #24-03IU by Steve and Amy Olson: The West Half (1/2) of  the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Seven (7), Township One-hundred Sixty-three (163) North,  Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.07.12.000. Applicant is requesting an Interim  Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate  a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential Development Zoning District (R2). 

Steve and Amy Olson were present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of  fact. 

Name of Applicant: Steve and Amy Olson Date: July 3, 2024    

Location/Legal Description: The West Half (1/2) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Seven (7), Township  One-hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Prosper) – Parcel ID# 16.07.12.000. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential Development  Zoning District (R2).  

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

Why or why not? Economic development. 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This includes the  following items: 

• Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • Fire extinguisher(s) 

• Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows 

• Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Per application. 

3) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A  ( ) 

Why or why not? R2 Rural Residential. 

4) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A  ( ) 

Why or why not? County Road 52. 

5) Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately demonstrated  how the increased traffic is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________ 

6) Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property?   YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Plenty of on site parking. 

7) Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?   YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Not needed. 

8) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and  size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?  YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Not needed. 

9) What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A  

( ) 

Why or why not? 6 people. 

10) Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Per application. 

11) Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A  ( ) 

Why or why not? Per application. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):  The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or transfer of the property, whichever occurs first.  

X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application.

X The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application.

X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

X A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. 

X No on street parking is allowed. 

X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 

Additional Conditions 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 ( ) 

 July 3, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with as presented and seconded by Mio. All in favor,  motion carried.  

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Nelson. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:36 PM. 

February 7, 2024

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

February 7, 2024 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Dohmen. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 3, 2024- Motion to approve – Marhula/Nelson. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Comission – New Business 

  • Consideration of Interim Use Permit #24-02IU by Walleye Empire, LLC: A parcel of land lying in the  Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4 SW1/4), Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.25.33.020. Applicant is requesting an Interim  Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short term vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). 

Tom Harig was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed  the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Walleye Empire, LLC Date: February 7, 2024 Location/Legal Description: See Attached Parcel Number: 19.25.33.022 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential (R1) Zoning District. 

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Development corridor. 
  2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This includes the following  items: 
    • Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • Fire extinguisher(s) 
    • Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows 
    • Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? See application. 
  3. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural residential and recreation. 
  4. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Private drive off Hwy 172 NW. 
  5. Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the  increased traffic is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Remain the same.
  6. Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Plenty of room onsite. 
  7. Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Adequate vegetation. 
  8. If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size  requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?  YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? No signage needed. 
  9. What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? See conditions. 
  10. Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? See application.  
  11. Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? See application.  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):  The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or transfer of the property, whichever occurs first. 

X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application. X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

X A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. 

X No on street parking is allowed. 

X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 

Additional Conditions are as follows:  

  1. Maximum of 3 people per Winter Agreement until upgraded sewer system. 
  2. Maximum of 9 people once sewer system is upgraded. 
  3. Maximum occupancy limited to septic system design. 
  4. Septic system upgraded by December 31, 2025. 

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

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

 February 7, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Nelson to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Marhula. All in favor, motion  carried. 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by Dunnell. All  in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:31 PM.

May 1, 2024

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

7:00 P.M. on May 1, 2024

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Wes Johnson and Marshall Nelson. Others present were Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund. Monica Dohmen and Nancy Dunnell were absent.
Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Johnson. All in favor.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 7, 2024- Motion to approve – Marhula/Nelson. All in favor.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.
Planning Commission – New Business

  • Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #24-01CU by Loren and Dawn Horner: A parcel of land lying in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE1⁄4NE1⁄4) of Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North of Range Thirty-two (32) West and Government Lot One (1), Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North of Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#’s 24.07.22.010 and 23.12.11.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of a rock rip rap project to stabilize the shoreline.

Loren Horner was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.

Name of Applicant: Loren Horner Date: May 1, 2024

Location/Legal Description: A parcel of land lying in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE1⁄4NE1⁄4) of Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North of Range Thirty-two (32) West and Government Lot One (1), Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North of Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID#’s 24.07.22.010 and 23.12.11.010. Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of a rock rip rap project to stabilize the shoreline.

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? No change

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? Rainy River 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 ( ) N/A ( X )
Why or why not?

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

Why or why not?

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Rural Residential

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

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

Why or why not? Rainy River shoreline

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: DNR permit needed if it becomes required.
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 ( )
May 1, 2024 _________________________
Date Ken Horntvedt

Chair, Planning Commission
Motion made by Mio to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Johnson. All in favor,
motion carried.

  • Consideration of Amendments to the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.
    Group discussion regarding proposed changes to the ordinance, mainly around new language about feedlot
    setbacks.
    Motion to move ordinance to the Board of Commissioners for approval. Marshall/Mio. All in favor, motion
    carried
    With no further business before the Planning Commission, Marhula made a motion to adjourn and seconded by
    Mio. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:27 PM.

January 3, 2024

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

January 3, 2024 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Dohmen. All in favor. 

Election of Chair: Dohmen nominated Ken Horntvedt, Seconded by Dunnell. Motion passed. Election of Vice Chair: Mio nominated Marshall Nelson. Seconded by Marhula. Motion passed. Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 6, 2023- Motion to approve – Marhula/Johnson. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

  • Consideration of Variance #24-01V by Leroy Howard: Lot 3 and the West Forty-five (45) feet of  Lot 4, Block 2, Dawley Estates in Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North,  Range Thirty (30) West – Parcel ID# 31.53.02.030. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section  503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct a garage at less than the required  one hundred (100) foot setback from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of the Rainy River and  less than the required fifty (50) foot setback from the right-of-way of State Highway 11. The Rainy  River is an Agricultural River Segment. 

Leroy Howard was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The  board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Leroy Howard Date: January 3, 2024 Parcel #: 31.53.02.030 Variance Application #: 24-01V 

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? Rural residential area. 
  2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official control? 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change. 
  3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  
    • YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 
  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): 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 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

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

 January 3, 2024 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion to Approve as submitted – Marhula/Johnson. All in favor.  

Motion to close Board of Adjustment meeting – Nelson/Marhula. All in favor.  

Motion to open the Planning Commission – Mio/Dohmen. All in favor.  

Planning Commission – New Business 

  • Consideration of Interim Use Permit #24-01IU by Daniel Klis: Lot 2, Block 1, East Pine Creek,  according to the recorded plat thereof, in Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 02.51.01.020. Applicant is requesting an Interim  Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a  short-term vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). This portion of Pine Creek is  considered Lake of the Woods, a General Development Lake. 

Richard McKeever from Young’s Bay Resort was present at the meeting representing Daniel Klis to  discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the information in the  application. Five letters of correspondence regarding this application were presented for the record.  

Letters received were from Ralph and Tracy Gardner, Tim Murray, Todd Leake, Rick Finnie and Lance  Hapka. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Daniel Klis Date: January 3, 2024 Location/Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, East Pine Creek Plat Parcel Number: 02.51.01.020 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential Zoning District (R1). 

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Resort and recreation area. 
  2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This includes the following  items: 
    • Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms
    • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • Fire extinguisher(s) 
    • Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows 
    • Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols 
    • YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Per application. 
  3. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural residential. 
  4. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Existing Road. 
  5. Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the  increased traffic is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No more than full time residence. 
  6. Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Onsite. 
  7. Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Nothing needed. 
  8. 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? ____________________________________________________________________________ 
  9. What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? 6 occupants. 
  10. Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 
    • Why or why not? Per application. 
  11. Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Per application. Reasonable in a residential area. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):  The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or transfer of the property, whichever occurs first. 

The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application.

The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application.

The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. 

No on street parking is allowed. 

If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 

Additional Conditions are as follows: None 

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

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

 January 3, 2024 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Nelson to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dohmen. All in favor,  motion carried. 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Marhula made a motion to adjourn and seconded by  Dunnell. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:33 PM.

December 6, 2023

7:00 P.M. on December 6, 2023

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Monica Dohmen,
Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Nancy Dunnell, Marshall Nelson and Wes Johnson. Others present were Land and
Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.
Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.
Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 1, 2023- Motion to approve – Nelson/Dohmen. All in favor.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.
Planning Commission – New Business

  • Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-19CU by Leach and Associates, LLC: Tract
    in Government Lot 2 of Section Thirty-four (34), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range
    Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 03.34.24.040. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as
    required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than 10 cubic
    yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage that
    occurred during the 2022 high water event. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
    Mary Leach was present via phone call at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board.
    The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.
    Name of Applicant: Leach and Associates, LLC Date: December 12, 2023
    Location/Legal Description: Tract in Government Lot 2 of Section Thirty-four (34), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight

(168) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 03.34.24.040

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods
County Zoning Ordinance to move more than 10 cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone
of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage that occurred during the 2022 high water event.
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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ________________________________________________________________
4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative
cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? ________________________________________________________________
5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Lakeshore.

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? ________________________________________________________________
7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)
Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Residential.

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

Why or why not? Lake of the Woods.

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 answers to the questions above, together with the facts supporting the answers and those other facts that exist in the
record, are hereby certified to be the Findings of the County Board of Commissioners.
The specific reasons for denial or conditions of approval are as follows:

  1. CUP also covers any future maintenance.
  2. Follow DNR guidelines for rock rip rap.
    Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( )

Motion made by Mio to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Nelson. All in favor, motion
carried.

  • Consideration of Interim Use Permit Application #23-01IU by Tracy and Sandra Pogue: Lot 1,
    Block 3, River Oaks Plat, Section One (1), Township One-hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range
    Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 23.52.03.010. Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit as
    required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term
    vacation rental in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). Johnson Creek is a tributary river
    segment.
    Tracy Pogue was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board
    discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.
    Name of Applicant: Tracy and Sandra Pogue Date: December 6, 2023
    Location/Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 3, River Oaks Plat
    Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods
    County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential Zoning District (R1).
    1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? In the development corridor.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This includes the
following items:

  • Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms
  • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • Fire extinguisher(s)
  • Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows
  • Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols

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

Why or why not? As per application.
3) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Rural residential.
4) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Oak Harbor Drive.
5) Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how
the increased traffic is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Previous residence.
6) Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property?

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

Why or why not? On site.
7) Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?

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

Why or why not? No signage needed.
9) What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s location?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? See application.
10) Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location?
YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Same as residential.
11) Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Same as residential.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):
X
The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or transfer of the
property, whichever occurs first.
X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application.
X The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application.
X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application.
X A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required.
X No on street parking is allowed.
X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements.
Additional Conditions 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 ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( )

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions and seconded by Dunnell. All in favor,
motion carried.
With no further business before the Planning Commission, Marhula made a motion to adjourn and seconded by
Johnson. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:29 PM.

November 1, 2023

7:00 P.M. on November 1, 2023

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Monica Dohmen,
Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, Nancy Dunnell, Marshall Nelson and Wes Johnson. Others present were Land and
Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.
Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.
Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Marshall/Johnson. All in favor.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 4, 2023- Motion to approve – Marhula/Dohmen. All in favor.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.
Planning Commission – New Business

  • Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-18CU by J&T Ferguson, LLC: Northeast
    Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE1/4SW1/4), West of Bostic Creek, Section Twenty-one (21), Township
    One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler)- Parcel ID # 19.21.31.000.
    Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County
    Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of
    the Woods and to move more than 50 cubic yards of material outside the shore impact zone of Lake of the
    Woods for the construction of a dike to protect the property from flooding. Lake of the Woods is a General
    Development Lake.
    Justin Ferguson was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board
    discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.
    Name of Applicant: J&T Ferguson, LLC Date: November 1, 2023

Location/Legal Description: Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE1⁄4SW1⁄4), West of Bostic Creek, Section
Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32)
West – Parcel ID# 19.21.31.000.

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods
County Zoning Ordinance to move more than 10 cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone
of Lake of the Woods and to move more than 50 cubic yards of material outside the shore impact zone
of Lake of the Woods for the construction of a dike to protect the property from flooding. Lake of the
Woods is a General Development Lake.

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

Why or why not? Shoreland 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 ( ) 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 ( ) 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? Lake of the Woods, Bostic Bay.

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: ____________________________________________

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 ( )

November 1. 2023 _________________________
Date Ken Horntvedt
Chair, Planning Commission
Motion made by Nelson to approve the request as presented and seconded by Marhula. All in favor,
motion carried.
With no further business before the Planning Commission, Nelson made a motion to adjourn and seconded by Mio.
All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM.

October 4, 2023 

7:00 P.M. on October 4, 2023 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve – Mio/ Dohmen. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 6, 2023- Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-15CU by Dennis Braaten and James Frohreich:  Tracts in Government Lot 4, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range  Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler)- Parcel ID # 19.17.23.020 and 19.17.23.010. Applicant is requesting a  Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move  more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline  damage and to move more than 50 cubic yards of material outside the shore impact zone for the construction of a  dike. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Dennis and James were present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board  discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Dennis Braaten and James Frohreich Date: October 4, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: Tract in Government Lot 4, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.17.23.020 and 19.17.23.010. 

Project Proposal: Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone  of Lake of the Woods to repair shoreline damage and to move more than 50 cubic yards of material outside the shore  impact zone for the construction of a dike. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Remain the same.

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? Lake of the Woods 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 ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Erosion protection for Lake of the Woods. 

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 (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ________________________________________________________________________ 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: ____________________________________________________ 

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

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

Motion was made by Mio to approve the request as presented and seconded by Marhula. All in favor, motion  carried. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-16CU by Terry and Susanna Brateng: Lot 13,  Block 1, Riverside Plat in Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty one (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID#: 24.50.01.130. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as  required by Section 401 B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to use a Recreational Vehicle  (RV) in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District on Rainy River. Rainy River is an Agricultural River  Segment. 

Terry was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed  the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.  

Name of Applicant: Terry and Susanna Brateng Date: October 4, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 13, Block 1, Riverside Plat in Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred  Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel ID#: 24.50.01.130. 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401 B of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to use a Recreational Vehicle (RV) in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning  District on Rainy River. 

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

Why or why not? Recreational water frontage. 

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

Why or why not? ________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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? Rainy River frontage. 

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change. 

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Spell out 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 ( ) 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. Holding tank only allowed until well is drilled and approved septic system installed. 

2. CUP expires 12-31-2025 and camper must be removed. 

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 and seconded by Dunnell. All in favor, motion  carried. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-17CU by Dallas Schwandt (Nels Holte Agent): A  tract in Government Lot Three (3), Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-two (32) West- Parcel ID# 19.17.24.070 (For Reference Only). 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 use consisting of a private winter ice fishing access road to Lake of the Woods in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake 

Nels was present at the meeting to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the  information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.  

Name of Applicant: Dallas Schwandt (Nels Holte Agent) Date: October 4, 2023 

Location/Legal Description: Tract in Government Lot Three (3), Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West- Parcel ID# 19.17.24.070 (For Reference Only) 

Project Proposal: 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 use consisting of a private winter ice fishing access road to  Lake of the Woods in a Residential Development Zoning District (R1). 

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

Why or why not? Recreational development. 

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

Why or why not? ________________________________________________________________________ 

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

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative  cover? YES (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? County Road 4. 

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

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

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? 1 4×8 sign designating lake access will be placed on a seasonal basis. Dec 1 to April 30th. 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1. CUP expires upon sale of property to others, except designated agent per application. 2. No parking or storage on access road or property. 

3. Signage must state that this is a private road only. 

4. No parking allowed on County Road 4. 

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 and seconded by Mio. All in favor, motion  carried. 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn and seconded by Dohmen.  All in favor, meeting adjourned at 8:18 PM.