January 9, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on January 9, 2019 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken  Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane, Dave Marhula and Ed Arnesen. Others present were: Land and  Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 5, 2018 

M/S/P McFarlane/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-01CU by MLK Holding Company  Inc.: The West 100 feet of the W½NE¼; The East 100 feet of the West 200 feet of  the South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; The East 200 feet of the West 400 feet of the  South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; the W½NE¼ Less Deeded, all within Section  Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two  (32) West, and the SW¼SE¼ less the West 100 feet in Section Thirteen (13),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID#s:  19.24.12.010, 19.24.12.011, 19.24.12.020, 19.24.12.000 and 19.13.43.000. Applicant  is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a winter access road to Lake of the  Woods; storage shed for off-season equipment storage and storage of fish houses in a  Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).  

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

Mr. Kinsella explained that he would like to operate an ice road for their clients who stay at his  resort, Border View Lodge. They have increased business and bought Wildwood Inn, bow called  Settlers Point, as overflow to increase business. He explained that equipment and work wise  allowing clients to use their own wheel houses on Border View Lodge’s existing road. The will  only take wheel houses by reservation and are planning to limit it to 15-18 wheel houses at a  time. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Kinsella and the Board. Fish house storage, accommodating  changing client needs, road logistics and garbage volume were discussed.  

Mio read a letter into the record from Gary Moeller opposing the request. 

Several members of the public expressed concerns about the road, current/future use of Lake of  the Woods and the health of the fishery.  

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the  Findings of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: MLT&T, LLC and MLK Holding Company Inc. Date: January 9,  2019 

Location/Legal Description: The West 100 feet of the W½NE¼; The East 100 feet of the West 200  feet of the South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; The East 200 feet of the West 400 feet of the South 233  feet of the SW¼NE¼; the W½NE¼ Less Deeded, all within Section Twenty-four (24), Township  One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, and the SW¼SE¼ less the West  100 feet in Section Thirteen (13), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two  (32) – Parcel ID#s: 19.24.12.010, 19.24.12.011, 19.24.12.020, 19.24.12.000 and 19.13.43.000. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a winter access road to Lake of the Woods;  storage shed for off-season equipment storage and storage of fish houses in a Rural Residential 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? _Resort Development Area________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Adding to existing road and monitored by applicant____________ 

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? _Will not______________________________________________ 

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

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and  existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?  YES ( ) 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? _Cannot access from 172, ice road access already exists_________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Rural residential_______________________________________ 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Lake access___________________________________________ 

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? ___See conditions_______________________________________ 

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1) Signage to include wordage that road is for private use of Border View Lodge only. Not a  public access 

2) Limited to 18 wheelhouse clients 

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 9, 2019 _________________________________  Date Tom Mio  Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Horntvedt. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission.  Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head, meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. 

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

January 9, 2019

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on January 9, 2019 

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken  Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane, Dave Marhula and Ed Arnesen. Others present were: Land and  Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 5, 2018 

M/S/P McFarlane/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-01CU by MLK Holding Company  Inc.: The West 100 feet of the W½NE¼; The East 100 feet of the West 200 feet of  the South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; The East 200 feet of the West 400 feet of the  South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; the W½NE¼ Less Deeded, all within Section  Twenty-four (24), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two  (32) West, and the SW¼SE¼ less the West 100 feet in Section Thirteen (13),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) – Parcel ID#s:  19.24.12.010, 19.24.12.011, 19.24.12.020, 19.24.12.000 and 19.13.43.000. Applicant  is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a winter access road to Lake of the  Woods; storage shed for off-season equipment storage and storage of fish houses in a  Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).  

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

Mr. Kinsella explained that he would like to operate an ice road for their clients who stay at his  resort, Border View Lodge. They have increased business and bought Wildwood Inn, bow called  Settlers Point, as overflow to increase business. He explained that equipment and work wise  allowing clients to use their own wheel houses on Border View Lodge’s existing road. The will  only take wheel houses by reservation and are planning to limit it to 15-18 wheel houses at a  time. 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Kinsella and the Board. Fish house storage, accommodating  changing client needs, road logistics and garbage volume were discussed.  

Mio read a letter into the record from Gary Moeller opposing the request. 

Several members of the public expressed concerns about the road, current/future use of Lake of  the Woods and the health of the fishery.  

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the  Findings of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: MLT&T, LLC and MLK Holding Company Inc. Date: January 9,  2019 

Location/Legal Description: The West 100 feet of the W½NE¼; The East 100 feet of the West 200  feet of the South 233 feet of the SW¼NE¼; The East 200 feet of the West 400 feet of the South 233  feet of the SW¼NE¼; the W½NE¼ Less Deeded, all within Section Twenty-four (24), Township  One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, and the SW¼SE¼ less the West  100 feet in Section Thirteen (13), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two  (32) – Parcel ID#s: 19.24.12.010, 19.24.12.011, 19.24.12.020, 19.24.12.000 and 19.13.43.000. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a winter access road to Lake of the Woods;  storage shed for off-season equipment storage and storage of fish houses in a Rural Residential 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? _Resort Development Area________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Adding to existing road and monitored by applicant____________ 

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? _Will not______________________________________________ 

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

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and  existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?  YES ( ) 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? _Cannot access from 172, ice road access already exists_________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Rural residential_______________________________________ 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Lake access___________________________________________ 

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? ___See conditions_______________________________________ 

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

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

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1) Signage to include wordage that road is for private use of Border View Lodge only. Not a  public access 

2) Limited to 18 wheelhouse clients 

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 9, 2019 _________________________________  Date Tom Mio  Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Horntvedt. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission.  Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head, meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. 

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

December 5, 2018

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 7, 2018 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-10V by Hooper Creek Investments,  LLC: A tract of land in Government Lot 1, Section Eighteen (18), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Lake of the Woods  County, Minnesota – Parcel ID #24.18.12.000. Applicant is requesting a Variance as  required by Section 501.2.3 of the Lake of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow the  applicant to create a single non-conforming lot less than 5 acres in size without  

platting within the shoreland area of the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an  

Agricultural River segment. 

Mio asked the representative from Hooper Creek Investments. LLC to come to the table and  explain the request.  

Mr. Ney explained that they would like to sell the house alone, without the rest of the property.  Rainy River lot size, lot topography, current lot lines, and future development plans were  discussed. 

A neighboring property owner asked questions about the proposed project, wondering what  exactly the plan for the property are. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the  Findings of Facts. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Hooper Creek Investments, LLC Date: December 5, 2018 

Parcel #: 24.18.12.000 Variance Application #: 18-10V 

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? Proposed lot size exceeds minimum lot  requirement for a platted lot. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No Change 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot is between two ravines and future  development is proposed. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot Size/Shape/Location 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? It remains the same. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Proposed shape and layout 

Condition(s): Tract B cannot be further Subdivided. 

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

December 5, 2018  

__________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by McFarlane to approved the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Head.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn of the Board of  Adjustments. Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula, meeting adjourned. Mio opened the  Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-12CU by Stevan Helmstetter: The  West 990’ of the NE¼NW¼, Section Thirty-one (31), Township One Hundred Sixty three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID# 14.31.21.010. Applicant  is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of  

the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial business consisting of  a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential District (R2). 

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

Mr. Helmstetter explained that he would like to rent out his home since he has since moved out  of the area and does not want to sell the home yet.  

Discussion ensured between the Commission and Mr. Helmstetter. Lot layout, structures and  neighboring properties were discussed. 

Mio asked the Board if they had further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the Findings  of Facts.  

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

Name of Applicant: _Stevan Helmstetter____________________________ Date: _12-5- 18________ 

Location/Legal Description: The West 990’ of the NE¼NW¼, Section Thirty-one (31), Township  One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID#  14.31.21.010____________ 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of  transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Rural Residential District (R2). 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Still residential.

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

Why or why not? No change. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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? No signage planned. 

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. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1) Check septic system to standards. 

2) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) expires on sale of transfer of ownership. 

3) Must meet Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) specs. 

4) Collect and submit any lodging taxes to Lake of the Woods County. 

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 ( ) 

December 5, 2108 

_____________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Head to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

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

Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt, meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

December 5, 2018

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 7, 2018 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-10V by Hooper Creek Investments,  LLC: A tract of land in Government Lot 1, Section Eighteen (18), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Lake of the Woods  County, Minnesota – Parcel ID #24.18.12.000. Applicant is requesting a Variance as  required by Section 501.2.3 of the Lake of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow the  applicant to create a single non-conforming lot less than 5 acres in size without  

platting within the shoreland area of the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an  

Agricultural River segment. 

Mio asked the representative from Hooper Creek Investments. LLC to come to the table and  explain the request.  

Mr. Ney explained that they would like to sell the house alone, without the rest of the property.  Rainy River lot size, lot topography, current lot lines, and future development plans were  discussed. 

A neighboring property owner asked questions about the proposed project, wondering what  exactly the plan for the property are. 

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the  Findings of Facts. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Hooper Creek Investments, LLC Date: December 5, 2018 

Parcel #: 24.18.12.000 Variance Application #: 18-10V 

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? Proposed lot size exceeds minimum lot  requirement for a platted lot. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No Change 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot is between two ravines and future  development is proposed. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot Size/Shape/Location 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? It remains the same. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Proposed shape and layout 

Condition(s): Tract B cannot be further Subdivided. 

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

December 5, 2018  

__________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by McFarlane to approved the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Head.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn of the Board of  Adjustments. Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula, meeting adjourned. Mio opened the  Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-12CU by Stevan Helmstetter: The  West 990’ of the NE¼NW¼, Section Thirty-one (31), Township One Hundred Sixty three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID# 14.31.21.010. Applicant  is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of  

the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial business consisting of  a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential District (R2). 

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

Mr. Helmstetter explained that he would like to rent out his home since he has since moved out  of the area and does not want to sell the home yet.  

Discussion ensured between the Commission and Mr. Helmstetter. Lot layout, structures and  neighboring properties were discussed. 

Mio asked the Board if they had further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the Findings  of Facts.  

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

Name of Applicant: _Stevan Helmstetter____________________________ Date: _12-5- 18________ 

Location/Legal Description: The West 990’ of the NE¼NW¼, Section Thirty-one (31), Township  One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID#  14.31.21.010____________ 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of  transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Rural Residential District (R2). 

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

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Still residential.

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

Why or why not? No change. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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? No signage planned. 

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. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1) Check septic system to standards. 

2) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) expires on sale of transfer of ownership. 

3) Must meet Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) specs. 

4) Collect and submit any lodging taxes to Lake of the Woods County. 

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 ( ) 

December 5, 2108 

_____________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Head to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

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

Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Horntvedt, meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

November 7, 2018

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

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Gerald  Levasseur, Ken Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane and Dave Marhula. Members absent: Ed Arnesen.  Others present were: Assistant Zoning Administrator Maranda Dahl.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 3, 2018 

M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-11CU by Cyrus Resort That part of  the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty (21),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, lying  and being West of the center of the channel of Bostic Creek, 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 shoreland area of Bostic Creek. 

Mio asked the representative from Cyrus Resort to come to the table and explain the request. 

Mr. Hammond explained that the resort would like to fill in their pool, pour a concrete slab over  it and turn it into a basketball court. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Hammond. Amount of fill and filling process  were discussed.  

Mio asked the Board if they had further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the Findings  of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: Cyrus Resort Date: November 7, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter  (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-

two (32) West, lying and being West of the center of the channel of Bostic Creek, parcel ID#  19.21.31.000. 

Project Proposal: 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 Bostic Creek. 

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___________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Safer for resort guests and chemical storage__________________ 

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? _____________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) Why or why not? __No change___________________________________________ 

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? _Recreational use________________________________________ 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _The pool was there______________________________________ 

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: __Complete by 12/21/2019____________  

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

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

November 7, 2018 _____________________________________ 

Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Planning  

Commission 

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by McFarlane. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

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

Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head, meeting adjourned at 7:09 p.m.  

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

November 7, 2018

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

Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Gerald  Levasseur, Ken Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane and Dave Marhula. Members absent: Ed Arnesen.  Others present were: Assistant Zoning Administrator Maranda Dahl.  

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 3, 2018 

M/S/P Horntvedt/Marhula 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-11CU by Cyrus Resort That part of  the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty (21),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, lying  and being West of the center of the channel of Bostic Creek, 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 shoreland area of Bostic Creek. 

Mio asked the representative from Cyrus Resort to come to the table and explain the request. 

Mr. Hammond explained that the resort would like to fill in their pool, pour a concrete slab over  it and turn it into a basketball court. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Hammond. Amount of fill and filling process  were discussed.  

Mio asked the Board if they had further questions, hearing none Mio proceeded to the Findings  of Facts. 

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

Name of Applicant: Cyrus Resort Date: November 7, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter  (NE¼SW¼), Section Twenty (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-

two (32) West, lying and being West of the center of the channel of Bostic Creek, parcel ID#  19.21.31.000. 

Project Proposal: 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 Bostic Creek. 

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___________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _Safer for resort guests and chemical storage__________________ 

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? _____________________________________________________ 

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 ( ) Why or why not? __No change___________________________________________ 

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? _Recreational use________________________________________ 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _The pool was there______________________________________ 

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: __Complete by 12/21/2019____________  

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

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

November 7, 2018 _____________________________________ 

 Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning  

Commission 

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by McFarlane. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

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

Adjournment: M/S/P Horntvedt/Head, meeting adjourned at 7:09 p.m.  

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

October 3, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on October 3, 2018 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Marhula/Levasseur 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 5, 2018 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustments – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-07V by Jason Thomson and Steven  Lindgren: Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Walleye Retreat Subdivision in Section Twenty-one  (21), Township One Hundred-Sixty-Two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Lake  of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.60.01.060 and 19.60.01.070. Applicant  is requesting a Variance from Section 501.2. of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to allow applicant to create a Non-Riparian duplex lot which will not meet the required 80,000 square feet within the shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the  Woods is a General Development Lake.  

Horntvedt asked Mr. Thompson to come to the table and explain their request.  

Mr. Thompson explained that they would like to place a mobile home on their lot as a cabin for  their children and grandchildren. It would be used seasonally.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Thompson. Septic system, lot square footage,  width requirements and neighboring lots were discussed.  

Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Thompson, hearing none  Horntvedt proceeded to the Findings of Facts.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Jason Thomson, Steven Lindgren Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 19.60.01.070 Variance Application #: 18-07V 

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Shoreland Area____________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Remain Seasonal Use____________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

Condition(s): __Westerly 115’ of Lot 7 to be under common ownership with lot 6  

________________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

 October 3, 2018 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Acting Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions.  

Motions seconded by Head.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18–08V by Steven Cyrus: A tract of land  in the NE ¼ of the NW ¼, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.28.21.040. Applicant is  requesting a Variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a structure and a Type 1 septic system  closer than the required 100’ setback to Bostic Creek. The Bostic Creek is a Tributary  River Segment. 

Horntvedt asked Mr. Cyrus to come to the table and explain his request.  

Mr. Cyrus explained that he wants to place a trailer house on his property closer than the 100’  setback because of the lot size, shape and location of other structures on the lot and neighboring  lots. He believes the septic system will most likely meet the 100’ setback. The closest point of  the trailer house would be approximately 66’. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Cyrus. The current structure, septic system and  well were discussed. 

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Steven and Deborah Cyrus Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 19.28.21.040 Variance Application #: 18-08V 

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Shoreland and Recreational Area ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ___No 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _____Lot  

Size_________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

Change_____________________________________________________________ 

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

Size_________________________________________________________________ Condition(s): __Mobile home location as per drawing as of this date 

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

October 3, 2018 

___________________________________ 

Date Ken Horntvedt Acting Chair, Board of  

Adjustment 

Motion made by Levasseur to approve with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-09V by 218 Lake Properties LLC:  Lots 19 and 20, Wabanica Beaches Subdivision, Section twelve (12), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West with parcel ID  #23.51.00.190. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a structure  closer than the required 100’ setback to Wabanica Bay and the required 20’ setback to  the Right-of-Way. Wabanica Bay if a Tributary River Segment.

Horntvedt asked Mr. Fitzgerald to come to the table and explain his request. 

Mr. Fitzgerald explained that he wants to place a new cabin on the lots as close to the road as  possible, in line with the other cabins. Due to lot depth, the new cabin would encroach on the  100’ setback. They are placing a septic system and drilling a new well.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Fitzgerald. Road right-of-way setbacks were  discussed. 

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: 218 Lake Properties, LLC Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 23.51.00.190 Variance Application #: 18-09V 

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ___Shoreland Location, Recreational Area 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __No Change ______________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot Size_________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot Size_________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _No Change________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot Size_________________________ Condition(s): __Location of new structure as per submitted drawing. _______________________ 

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

October 3, 2018 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt Acting Chair, Board of  

Adjustment 

Motion made by Levasseur to approve with conditions.  

Motions seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further business for the Board, Horntvedt entertained a motion to adjourn of the Board  of Adjustments. Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head, meeting adjourned. Horntvedt opened the  Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-09CU by Nels Holte: Lot 7, Block  6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One-Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID #19.69.06.070. Applicant is  

requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.D of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a Commercial  Planned Unit Development in a Commercial-Recreation District. 

Horntvedt asked Mr. Holte to come to the table and explain his request. 

Mr. Holte explained that he would like a Conditional Use to operate a small campground  consisting of five (5) lots. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Holte. Lot size, Dept. of Health requirements and  covenants and restrictions were discussed.  

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

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

Name of Applicant: Nels Holte Date: October 3, 2018

Location/Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township  One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID# 19.69.06.070 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to create a Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting of a  seasonal camping/RV park with five full hook-ups. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Commercial/Recreational District______________ 

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

Why or why not? _Meet Minnesota Department of Health Code_____________________ 

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution,  including sedimentation and nutrient loading?  

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __No Change___________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES (x) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ___Existing Road________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __Commercial/Recreational__________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ____Mound system in place__________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? __________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ___Existing Water and Sewer_______________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( x ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ___________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? _______________________________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? _Parking lot already there_____________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 3000 sq. ft required per lot. Must meet Minnesota  Department of Health standards  

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

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

 October 3, 2018 _____________________________________  Date Ken Horntvedt 

Acting Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Levasseur.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 18-10CU by Gary Grove: A tract of  land in the NW ¼ of the NW ¼, Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One-Hundred  Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West with parcel ID #14.29.22.010.  Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a commercial business  consisting of short-term vacation rental. 

Horntvedt asked Mr. Grove and Mrs. Heppner to come to the table and explain their request. 

They explained that they would like to rent out the property on AirBnb and VRBO since their  long-term rentals are moving out. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mrs. Heppner/Mr. Grove. Access to the residence and  parking were discussed. 

Horntvedt stated that there was a letter regarding this Conditional Use permit and read it into the  record. 

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

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

Name of Applicant: Gary Grove Date: October 3, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: A 2-acre tract located in the NW ¼ NW ¼, Section Twenty-Nine  (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID#  14.29.22.010. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business  consisting of transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Rural Residential District  (R2).

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? _Seasonal/ Recreational Area ______________________________ 

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

Why or why not? __No Change___________________________________________ 

9) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution,  including sedimentation and nutrient loading?  

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

10) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage  features, and vegetative cover?  

YES (x) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __No Change___________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? _Existing Road_________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ___Seasonal/Recreational________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _____________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ___Existing system_____________________________________

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? __Existing Well and Sewer ________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __Existing trees_________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ____As per application___________________________________ 

21) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant  adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?   YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __Existing parking______________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _Conditional use permit expires upon change  of ownership from Gary Grove. 

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

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

October 3, 2018 _____________________________________  Date Ken Horntvedt 

Acting Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Head to approve with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

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

Adjournment: M/S/P Head/Marhula, meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.  

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

October 3, 2018

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on October 3, 2018 

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Marhula/Levasseur 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 5, 2018 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustments – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-07V by Jason Thomson and Steven  Lindgren: Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Walleye Retreat Subdivision in Section Twenty-one  (21), Township One Hundred-Sixty-Two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Lake  of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID# 19.60.01.060 and 19.60.01.070. Applicant  is requesting a Variance from Section 501.2. of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to allow applicant to create a Non-Riparian duplex lot which will not meet the required 80,000 square feet within the shoreland area of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the  Woods is a General Development Lake.  

Horntvedt asked Mr. Thompson to come to the table and explain their request.  

Mr. Thompson explained that they would like to place a mobile home on their lot as a cabin for  their children and grandchildren. It would be used seasonally.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Thompson. Septic system, lot square footage,  width requirements and neighboring lots were discussed.  

Horntvedt asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Thompson, hearing none  Horntvedt proceeded to the Findings of Facts.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Jason Thomson, Steven Lindgren Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 19.60.01.070 Variance Application #: 18-07V 

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Shoreland Area____________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _Remain Seasonal Use____________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

Condition(s): __Westerly 115’ of Lot 7 to be under common ownership with lot 6  

________________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

 October 3, 2018 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

Acting Chair, Board of Adjustment

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions.  

Motions seconded by Head.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18–08V by Steven Cyrus: A tract of land  in the NE ¼ of the NW ¼, Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.28.21.040. Applicant is  requesting a Variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a structure and a Type 1 septic system  closer than the required 100’ setback to Bostic Creek. The Bostic Creek is a Tributary  River Segment. 

Horntvedt asked Mr. Cyrus to come to the table and explain his request.  

Mr. Cyrus explained that he wants to place a trailer house on his property closer than the 100’  setback because of the lot size, shape and location of other structures on the lot and neighboring  lots. He believes the septic system will most likely meet the 100’ setback. The closest point of  the trailer house would be approximately 66’. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Cyrus. The current structure, septic system and  well were discussed. 

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Steven and Deborah Cyrus Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 19.28.21.040 Variance Application #: 18-08V 

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Shoreland and Recreational Area ____________________________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ___No 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _____Lot  

Size_________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

Change_____________________________________________________________ 

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

Size_________________________________________________________________ Condition(s): __Mobile home location as per drawing as of this date 

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

October 3, 2018 

___________________________________ 

Date Ken Horntvedt Acting Chair, Board of  

Adjustment 

Motion made by Levasseur to approve with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Head. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Variance Application #18-09V by 218 Lake Properties LLC:  Lots 19 and 20, Wabanica Beaches Subdivision, Section twelve (12), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West with parcel ID  #23.51.00.190. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to construct a structure  closer than the required 100’ setback to Wabanica Bay and the required 20’ setback to  the Right-of-Way. Wabanica Bay if a Tributary River Segment.

Horntvedt asked Mr. Fitzgerald to come to the table and explain his request. 

Mr. Fitzgerald explained that he wants to place a new cabin on the lots as close to the road as  possible, in line with the other cabins. Due to lot depth, the new cabin would encroach on the  100’ setback. They are placing a septic system and drilling a new well.  

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Fitzgerald. Road right-of-way setbacks were  discussed. 

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

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: 218 Lake Properties, LLC Date: October 3, 2018 Parcel #: 23.51.00.190 Variance Application #: 18-09V 

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

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? ___Shoreland Location, Recreational Area 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __No Change ______________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot Size_________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot Size_________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? _No Change________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) and Why or why not? __Lot Size_________________________ Condition(s): __Location of new structure as per submitted drawing. _______________________ 

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

October 3, 2018 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt Acting Chair, Board of  

Adjustment 

Motion made by Levasseur to approve with conditions.  

Motions seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

With no further business for the Board, Horntvedt entertained a motion to adjourn of the Board  of Adjustments. Adjournment: M/S/P Marhula/Head, meeting adjourned. Horntvedt opened the  Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #18-09CU by Nels Holte: Lot 7, Block  6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One-Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID #19.69.06.070. Applicant is  

requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.D of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a Commercial  Planned Unit Development in a Commercial-Recreation District. 

Horntvedt asked Mr. Holte to come to the table and explain his request. 

Mr. Holte explained that he would like a Conditional Use to operate a small campground  consisting of five (5) lots. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Holte. Lot size, Dept. of Health requirements and  covenants and restrictions were discussed.  

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

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

Name of Applicant: Nels Holte Date: October 3, 2018

Location/Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township  One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID# 19.69.06.070 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to create a Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting of a  seasonal camping/RV park with five full hook-ups. 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Commercial/Recreational District______________ 

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

Why or why not? _Meet Minnesota Department of Health Code_____________________ 

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution,  including sedimentation and nutrient loading?  

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __No Change___________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES (x) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ___Existing Road________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __Commercial/Recreational__________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ____Mound system in place__________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? __________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ___Existing Water and Sewer_______________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( x ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ___________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? _______________________________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? _Parking lot already there_____________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 3000 sq. ft required per lot. Must meet Minnesota  Department of Health standards  

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

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

 October 3, 2018 _____________________________________  Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Acting Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Levasseur.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 18-10CU by Gary Grove: A tract of  land in the NW ¼ of the NW ¼, Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One-Hundred  Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West with parcel ID #14.29.22.010.  Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a commercial business  consisting of short-term vacation rental. 

Horntvedt asked Mr. Grove and Mrs. Heppner to come to the table and explain their request. 

They explained that they would like to rent out the property on AirBnb and VRBO since their  long-term rentals are moving out. 

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mrs. Heppner/Mr. Grove. Access to the residence and  parking were discussed. 

Horntvedt stated that there was a letter regarding this Conditional Use permit and read it into the  record. 

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

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

Name of Applicant: Gary Grove Date: October 3, 2018 

Location/Legal Description: A 2-acre tract located in the NW ¼ NW ¼, Section Twenty-Nine  (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West, parcel ID#  14.29.22.010. 

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business  consisting of transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Rural Residential District  (R2).

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? _Seasonal/ Recreational Area ______________________________ 

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

Why or why not? __No Change___________________________________________ 

9) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution,  including sedimentation and nutrient loading?  

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

10) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage  features, and vegetative cover?  

YES (x) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __No Change___________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? _Existing Road_________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ___Seasonal/Recreational________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? _____________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ___Existing system_____________________________________

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

Why or why not? __Existing Well and Sewer ________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) 

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __Existing trees_________________________________________ 

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

YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? ____As per application___________________________________ 

21) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant  adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?   YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? __Existing parking______________________________________ 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _Conditional use permit expires upon change  of ownership from Gary Grove. 

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

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

October 3, 2018 _____________________________________  Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Acting Chair, Planning Commission 

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

Motion made by Head to approve with conditions.  

Motion seconded by Marhula.  

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

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

Adjournment: M/S/P Head/Marhula, meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.  

The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version  has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of  the proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted,  

Josh Stromlund

September 5, 2018

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Head/Marhula 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 1, 2018 

M/S/P McFarlane/Levasseur 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Board of Adjustments 

New Business 

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

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

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

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

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

Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Ms. Spee, hearing none Mio proceeded  to the Findings of Facts. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 

SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE 

Name of Applicant: Leah Spee Date: September 5, 2018 Parcel #: 23.57.02.020 Variance Application #: 18-06V 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPROVED ( x ) DENIED ( ) 

_______9/5/18___________ ___________________________________ Date Tom Mio 

Chair, Board of Adjustment

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

Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions.  

Motion seconded by McFarlane. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried. 

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

Adjournment: 

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

August 1, 2018

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

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

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

Approval of the Agenda:  

M/S/P Horntvedt/Head 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 11, 2018 

M/S/P Marhula/Head 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 

– None 

Planning Commission: 

Old Business 

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

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

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

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-08CU by JRF  Properties, LLC – Alan Fish: Lots 1-5, Block 1, Marina Drive Estates, Section  Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two  (32) West, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel IDs# 19.70.01.010  through 19.70.01.050. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required  by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the  operation of a commercial business consisting of a seasonal camping area/RV Park in  a Commercial-Recreation District. The proposed project area is non-shoreland. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to create a Planned Unit Development consisting of a seasonal  camping/RV park with twenty-five full hook-ups. 

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

Why or why not? _In County growth corridor and zoned commercial_____________ 

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

Why or why not? _Has to meet State standards_______________________________ 

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

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

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? ___Roads exists_________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __Meet State approval____________________________________ 

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

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

Why or why not? ___Must meet State approval_______________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? __Will meet State requirements_____________________________ 

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

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

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

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

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( x ) Denied ( ) August 1, 2018 _____________________________________  Date Tom Mio 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.  Motion made by Horntvedt to approve the request with conditions. 

Motion seconded by Marhula. 

All in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.  

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

Adjournment: 

M/S/P McFarlane/Head, meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m.