7:00 P.M. on September 6, 2023 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:03 pm with the following members present: Tom Mio, Nancy Dunnell,  Wes Johnson, Monica Dohmen and Dave Marhula. Absent Member: Marshall Nelson. Others present were Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund. 

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

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

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 2, 2023- Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-13CU by Dale Wang, et.al.: A tract in  Government Lot 4, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.17.23.050. 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. Lake  of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Larry Houser was present at the meeting to discuss both requests and answer questions from the Planning  Commission. Houser indicated he is representing the family members that own both parcels and the work  conducted was by the same contractor. Stromlund provided a brief history of the parcels of property dated back  to the 2014 high water event. The Planning Commission discussed the information in the application. The board  then moved on to the findings of fact and decision.  

Name of Applicant: Dale Wang Date: September 6, 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# 19.17.23.050. 

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 to repair shoreline damage. 

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 restoration. 

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? 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? Lake of the Woods 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: 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 (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #23-14CU by Katherine Houser: A tract in  Government Lot 4, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID# 19.17.23.030. 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 to repair shoreline damage. Lake  of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

Name of Applicant: Katherine Houser Date: September 6, 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# 19.17.23.030. 

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 to repair shoreline damage. 

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 restoration. 

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? 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? Lake of the Woods 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: 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 (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( ) Motion to Adjourn at 7:16 PM- Mio/Johnson. All in favor. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on September 7, 2022 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda: Motion to approve –Marshall/Dave. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 3, 2022- Motion to approve- Dave /Ken. All in favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Monica noted a conflict for Casey and Colleen Hill. 

Board of Adjustments: New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #22-07V by Bayview Lodge of Baudette, LLC: Lot 31, Wabanica  Beaches Subdivision in Section Twelve (12), Township One-hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range  Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 23.51.00.310. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section  503.6 of the Lake of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow a structure that will not meet the  required fifty (50) foot setback from the right-of-way from State Highway 172. Wabanica Creek is a  Tributary River segment. 

Randee explained that they were replacing an existing cabin with a newer one to be located approximately 1 foot further from Hwy  172 than the previous cabin. Tom noted that a letter was received from MNDOT noting no concern for the cabin(s) as long as it  remained outside of their right of way. No concerns were noted from the audience. Marhula recommended that they go to the Findings  of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Bayview Lodge of Baudette, LLC Date: September 7, 2022 Parcel #: 23.51.00.310 Variance Application #: 22-07V 

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

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Commercial cabin replacement. 

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? Cabin rental. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Placement of prior cabins. 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Right of way. 

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? Right of way considerations.

Condition(s): This ruling shall apply to replacement of any cabins legally described that do not meet setback requirements of  State Highway 172. 

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

Motion by Marhula to approve, with conditions, the request for a variance. 

The motion was 2^nd by Horntvedt, all in favor. Motion passes. 

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 ( ) 

September 7, 2022 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

– Consideration of Variance #22-08V by Casey and Colleen Hill: A 4.27-acre tract in Government  Lot 2 Section Eight (8), Township One-hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty (30) West – Parcel  ID# 31.08.12.030. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.7 of the Lake of the Woods  Zoning Ordinance, to allow a structure that will not meet the required fifty (50) foot setback from the  right-of-way from State Highway 11. 

Reed McFarlane spoke for the Hill family explaining that they needed room for horses when they purchased the  land and placed a building in the NW corner to best block prevailing winds. Nelson noted that the building is  moveable although obviously not easily due to the shape and open side of the building. Mio noted that MNDOT  is ok with the building as long as it does not encroach on the right of way. Marhula recommended they move to  the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Casey and Colleen Hill Date: September 7, 2022 Parcel #: 31.08.12.030 Variance Application #: 22-08V 

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

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

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

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? Livestock protection/horses. 

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

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

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

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

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? Property layout. 

Condition(s): No further structures within Right-of-Way setback will be allowed. 

Motion by Marhula to approve, with conditions, the request for a variance. 

The motion was 2^nd by Horntvedt, all in favor. Dohmen abstained. Motion passes. Building permit is still required by the Hill  family. 

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 ( ) 

September 7, 2022 ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment 

Motion by Nelson to close the Board of Adjustment and open the Planning Commission. Horntvedt 2^nd. All in favor. Planning Commission: New Business 

– Consideration of Zone Change #22-05ZC by Long Point Association: A tract of land located in  Government Lot Five (5), Section Thirty-six (36), Township One-hundred Sixty-four (164) North,  Range Thirty-four (34) West. 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 continued development of the property. 

Earl and Mary Jean Anderson explained that the original members never thought the back lots would ever get  developed which isn’t how things worked out and there are now 23 garages on back lots. Therefore, the  association would like to change the zoning to match the current activity on the property. The association does  not allow any living quarters on any of the backlots according to the current bylaws. The new line would align  with the road to the South of the backlots. The remaining land is to remain within the current Special Protection  zoning. 

Horntvedt recommended they go to the findings of fact.

Name of Applicant: Long Point Association, Inc. Date: September 7, 2022 

Location/Legal Description: A tract of land within Government Lot Five (5), Section Thirty-six (36),  Township One hundred Sixty-four (164) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West 

Current Zoning Classification: Special Protection Proposed: Rural Residential (R2) Parcel Number(s): 13.36.41.000 through 13.36.41.251 Application Number: 22-05ZC 

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

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

Comments: Recreational recreation area. 

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

Comments: Residential. 

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

___Yes X No 

Comments: No change. 

4. Is there a potential for public health, safety or traffic generation impacts based on the proposed  zone change and how will they be addressed? ___Yes X No Comments: No change. 

5. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to  accommodate the proposal? ___Yes X No Comments: No change. 

6. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement of surrounding  property for uses permitted in the zoning district? ___Yes X No

Comments: No change. 

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

Comments: Expansion into a Special Protection Zone over many years. 

8. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood? ___Yes X No 

Comments: No change. 

Conditions:  

Motion to approve by Horntvedt, 2^nd by Marhula, all in favor. Motion passes. 

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

 September 7, 2022 ____________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning Commission 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-11CU by Milo Ravndalen: The SE¼SE¼ of  Section Twenty (20); the NE¼NE¼ of Section Twenty-nine (29); the NW¼NW¼ of Section  Twenty-eight (28); the SW¼SW¼ of Section Twenty-one (21) all within Township One-hundred  Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID#’s 17.20.41.000; 17.29.11.000;  17.28.22.000; 17.21.33.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section  401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive and commercial use  of the property consisting of aggregate mining, washing, and bituminous material, in a Rural  Residential Zoning District (R2). 

Conditional Use Request 22-11CU was tabled due to no representative being at the meeting and opposition to the request.  Walter Kolodziej expressed concern about ruts on the road currently due to road design. Their concern is what heavy  equipment will do to the road. Walter also expressed concern about noise, dust and additional traffic. Next meeting date is  October 5, 2022. Motion to table came from Marhula, 2^nd by Nelson. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-12CU by Brandon and Alycia Fish: Lot 8, Block  1 of Lukes Estates in Section Twenty-four (24), Township One-hundred Sixty-two (162) North,  Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID # 19.58.01.080. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use 

Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate  a short-term transient rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District. 

Brandon explained the need for short term rental business in the area. Mio pointed out that there are no egress  windows in any of the rental bedrooms. Mio also noted a need to travel through a utility room to be able to exit  the building in an emergency as a concern to expect a client to understand that. The current layout of the  building is deemed too dangerous to allow short term rental business without changes. Mio suggested the  request be tabled until egress issues can be addressed as well as proper travel through the building in the event  of an emergency.  

Two letters regarding the short-term rental were read into the minutes from Shawn Rojeski and Tom & Pam  Ford. Steve and Beverly Barcell expressed concerns about the driveway location with their desire to place a  fence between their property and the Fish property. The driveway issue is a property owner issue to be resolved  between the property owners. Stromlund explained the process of withdrawing their request or waiving the  decision-making deadline until there is time to make requested adjustments to the property. Nelson moved to  table the application, 2^nd by Dunnell. All in favor. Stromlund will follow up with a letter request to withdraw the  decision-making deadline. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-13CU by Janelle and Shawn Reed: Lots 4 and 5,  Block 1 of Himberg Estates in Section Ten (10), Township One-hundred Sixty (160) North, Range  Thirty (30) West –Parcel ID#31.54.01.040. 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.  

Janelle Reed explained her desire to leave a camper on their land so that it’s more convenient to visit without  needing to haul their camper each time. Their long-term desire is to build a cabin on the land. There is no well  on the land. Reed’s carry their black water home with them at present. Nelson motioned that they move to the  findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Shawn and Janelle Reed Date: September 7, 2022 Location/Legal Description: Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Himberg Estates in Section 10, T. 160N, R. 30W 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to allow placement of a recreational vehicle within the shoreland area  of the 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? Allows recreational activity. 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? 

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Access to Highway 11. 

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? On shoreland property/recreational. 

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

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? Well screened. 

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1. Seven (7) year sunset on Conditional Use Permit (1/1/2030). 

Nelson motioned to approve with conditions, 2^nd by Dohmen. All in favor. 

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 7, 2022 _____________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

– Consideration of Lake of the Woods County Floodplain Ordinance 

o Floodplain Ordinance 

Josh explained the need for a floodplain ordinance in order to allow for floodplain insurance after October 2022. A generic version  was handed out with the intent to adjust to fit local county needs. 2.118: Critical facilities are recommended for removal from the  ordinance. All in favor. 2.130: light duty trucks was ok’d for removal. 2.139: Repetitive loss recommended for language change to be  more clear on damage value definitions for market value versus estimated market value. Market value depends on what business  you’re in. Recommendation is to work with the Assessor’s office to define “value”. OK to leave language as is for now.  Section 3.0 Jurisdiction and Districts is slated to begin using Beacon to determine location replacing old paper maps. 4.33 to be  removed as we do not have any such facilities. 5.15 to remove wording about CUP as it’s already required in the Zoning Ordinance.  5.16 recommended to remain in ordinance. 5.25 to be removed. 5.26 to remain. 5.31 to remain. 5.32 to remain. 5.41 & 5.42 to remain. Adjustments to language in 6.22.B.3. 6.24: Fill language to remain. 6.25 to be removed.6.26 to be questioned further by Josh. 6.32 to  remain. 6.42 to remain. 7.42.B to remain. 11.25 & 11.26 to remain. 11.32 and 11.33 to remain. 12.23 to remain. 

Next step is to present adjusted floodplain ordinance to the board of commissioners for approval as early as September 13, 2022. The  ordinance needs to be adopted prior to October 27. Motion by Dohmen to approve as noted, 2^nd by Dunnell. All in favor. 

Motion to Adjourn at 9:42 PM- Horntvedt/Dunnell. All in favor.