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

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

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

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

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment: New Business  

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

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

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential/Recreational area. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condition(s): 

1) Must have a septic system inspection. 

2) Additional no larger than 12’x20’. 

3) Completed by 12/31/2022. 

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Zone Change #21-11ZC by Connie Barrow: West half (1/2) of the  Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Thirty-four (34),  Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-Five (35) West – Parcel  ID# 04.34.11.010. Applicant is requesting an amendment to Section 303 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance as allowed by Section 1206. The amendment  would change the classification for the property from a Special Protection (SP) District to  a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District for the purposes of allowing a permanent  structure to be located on the property for residential purposes.  

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

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-15CU by Robert Audette: A tract two hundred sixty-four feet by one-thousand five-hundred seventy-three feet (264’ x 1573’)  in both Government Lot Two (2) of Section seven (7) Township One-hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West and the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the  Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Eighteen (18), Township One-hundred Sixty-Two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.65.00.090. Applicant is  requesting an After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of  material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards outside of the  shore impact zone of the Lake of the Woods for the purpose of constructing a private boat  ramp. Lake of the Woods is a general development lake.  

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

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

Why or why not? Proposed yes/ATF not 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

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

Why or why not? Did affect topography, drainage and veg cover. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? For boat ramp.

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system  adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section  901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers  of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other  hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements,  has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

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

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

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

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to approve with conditions- Dave/ Nancy.  

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