August 5, 2026
LAND & WATER MINUTES
August 5, 2026
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on August 5, 2026
Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Ken Horntvedt, Wes Johnson, Dave Marhula, Tom Mio and Nancy Dunnell. Absent were Tim Nordlof and Marshall Nelson. Others present were Land and Water Planning Staff Scott Head and Eric Best.
Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Johnson/Dunnell. All in favor.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 1, 2026 – Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None
Board of Adjustment – New Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #26-03CU by Bryce and Tracy Evans: Lots 15 and 16, Block 1, Sandy Shores in Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID’s #16.55.01.150 and 16.55.01.160. Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with Sections 902 and 903 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the movement of more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair/reconstruct the existing rock rip rap. Additionally, the applicants are requesting to construct a private water access ramp on Lot 16. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
Bryce and Tracy were in attendance and discussed their need for maintenance on their existing Rip Rap as well as a desire to add a method to get down to the waters edge with family and small boats to better enjoy their property. The group then moved to the finding of facts.
Name of Applicant: Bryce and Tracy Evans Date: August 5, 2026
Location/Legal Description: Lots 15 and 16, Block 1, Sandy Shores in Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West
Parcel Number: 16.55.01.150 and 16.55.01.160
Project Proposal: Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with Sections 902 and 903 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the movement of more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods to repair/reconstruct the existing rock rip rap. Additionally, the applicants are requesting to construct a private water access ramp on Lot 16. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES ( X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreline Protection
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X)
Why or why not?
3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Prevent Erosion
4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES ( X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change
5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) Why or why not?
6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) Why or why not?
7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) Why or why not?
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreline & 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? Shoreland protection and 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 ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) Why or why not?
17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X)
Why or why not?
The specific conditions of approval are as follows: (1) Follow DNR guidelines for lake access. (2) Future maintenance is allowed.
The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:
Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( X) Denied ( )
Motion to recommend approval with conditions to the Board of Commissioners by Mio, seconded by Johnson. All in favor.
August 5, 2026
_____________________________________
Date Ken Horntvedt Chair, Planning Commission
This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance
With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Marhula. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 PM.
