March 8, 2022

The Lake of The Woods County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at Lake of the Woods County Government Center in the Commissioners’ Room.

Call To Order

Vice-Chair Ed Arnesen called the meeting to order at 9:00a.m. and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited with the following members present: Commissioners: Cody Hasbargen, and Joe Grund. Also present was County Auditor/Treasurer Lorene Hanson. Absent: Commissioners: Buck Nordlof and Jon Waibel. 

Approval of Agenda

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously by roll call to approve the agenda with the following changes: Add Post Prom Request, NWA Forgivable Loan Update, Stonegarden Grant, and Legislative Update. Remove: Carp Swamp Addition-Scott Laudenslager.

Approval of Minutes

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to approve the minutes from February 22,2022.

NWA- Northerly Park

Joe Laurin requested the board approve a resolution to apply for a grant to hire a skilled landscape architect to work on the NorthWest Angle Northerly Park. He is requesting an additional $2,000 from the county to go towards the project in support of the grant. 

Resolution

The following Resolution was offered by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and moved for adoption: 

A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF NWA NORTHERLY PARK

      Resolution No. 2022-03-01

Resolution approving a Greater Minnesota Legacy Grant application to the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the Northwest Angle Northerly Park project.

WHEREAS, Lake of the Woods County has the right and authority to sponsor a grant funding request to the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission (GMRPTC).  

WHEREAS, Lake of the Woods County has a right and authority to act as Legal Sponsor for the State Grant Application of the NWA Northerly Park and will work with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”), in developing a Grant Agreement relating to the funding which may be awarded by the GMRPTC.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That Lake of the Woods County certifies it has read and understands the Office of Grants Management Conflict of Interest Policy 08-01, will maintain an adequate Conflict of Interest Policy and monitor and report any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest to the GMRPTC and DNR.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Lake of the Woods County confirms all of the information in its Application and further confirms that it has no expectation of, or entitlement to, reimbursement of costs incurred prior to grant agreement execution date and, if applicable, it has not entered into a written purchase agreement to acquire property described in its Application if grant funds are to be used for the purchase. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Lake of the Woods County has or will acquire a fee interest ownership or permanent easement over the land described in the Application for regional parks and regional special feature parks as applicable. The applicant has or will acquire a fee interest, permanent or perpetual easement or minimum twenty (20) year lease over the land described in the Application for regional trails or regional special feature parks, as applicable and approved, before the project proceeds.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Lake of the Woods County agrees that it will comply with all applicable laws, regulations and requirements as stated in the Grant Agreement with the DNR, including dedicating the park property for uses consistent with the grant agreement into perpetuity or for trails, committing to maintain the trails for a period of not less than twenty (20) years, and dedicating all land acquired under the project for uses consistent with the grant agreement into perpetuity.

BE IT FURTHER UNDERSTOOD, that the GMRPTC will confirm at such time that it has made the award of funds authorizing a Grant Agreement to be developed between the DNR and the Applicant.

The resolution was seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund, and the same being put to a vote, was unanimously carried.

Northerly Park Fund Request

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to approve the request for $2,000 from Lake of the Woods County to the Northerly Park project in support of the grant agreement. 

Social Services

Claims

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the following claims: Commissioners Warrants $23,569.88; Commissioners Warrants $2,630.85; Commissioners Warrants $15,425.57.

Approval of out of state travel for Conferences

Social Services Director Amy Ballard asked the board to approve a request for employees to travel out of state for the upcoming conference. 

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the request for out of state travel for conferences.

Auditor/Treasurer

Claims

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to approve the claims against the County as follows: Revenue $50,515.88; Road & Bridge $266,556.18; County Development $3,978.50; Joint Ditch $14,107.11; Solid Waste $20,661.54; EDA $773.43.

    WARRANTS FOR PUBLICATION

                Warrants Approved On 3/08/2022 For Payment 3/11/2022

                      Vendor Name Amount

                                                   Esri                                             25,000.00 

                                                   Hoffman, Philipp & Martell, PLLC       3,800.00

                                                   Howard’s Oil Company               6,947.56 

                                                   LOW Highway Dept               3,270.00 

                                                   Mar-Kit Landfill                             12,042.00 

                                                   Naylor Heating & Refrigeration LLC 3,401.36

                                                   NetCenter Technologies               3,221.25

                                                   Roseau County Treasurer               14,107.11 

                                                   Thief River Glass                               2,170.00 

                                                   WIDSETH                                             5,228.50 

                                                   Ziegler, Inc                                             251,467.61 

                                                              47 Payments less than 2000 25,937.25

                                                                          Final Total: 356,592.64

Further moved to authorize the payment of the following auditor warrants: February 23, 2022 for $99,114.34; March 2, 2022 for $58,973.02; March 3, 2022 for $3,150.00.

Resolution to Re-Establish Precincts & Polling Places

Resolution

The following resolution was offered by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and moved for adoption:

A Resolution Re-establishing County Precincts and Polling Places

Resolution 22-03-02

WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of Minnesota has been redistricted; and

WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section §204B.14, subd. 3(d) requires that precinct boundaries must be reestablished within 60 days of when the legislature has been redistricted or at least 19 weeks before the state primary election, whichever comes first;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners, State of Minnesota hereby re-establishes the boundaries of the voting precincts and polling places as follows:

Precinct 1A (Mail Ballot — Lake of the Woods Government Center, 206 8^th Ave SE, Baudette)

Precinct 1A consists of that portion of Baudette Township that lies East of the Winter Road River and East of County Road 75, south of where it intersects the Winter Road River; North of Krull St; and West of the City of Baudette.

Precinct 2A (Mail Ballot — Lake of the Woods Government Center, 206 8^th Ave SE, Baudette)

Precinct 2A consists of that portion of Gudrid Township that lies outside of the City of Baudette.

Precinct 2C (Mail Ballot — Lake of the Woods Government Center, 206 8^th Ave SE, Baudette)

Precinct 2C consists of the Townships of Boone, Rapid River, Swiftwater, Unorganized 158-30, Keil, and Unorganized 157-30.

Precinct 3A (Mail Ballot — Lake of the Woods Government Center, 206 8^th Ave SE, Baudette)

Precinct 3A consists of the Townships of Victory, Rulien, Walhalla, and that portion of Spooner that lies outside of the City of Baudette.

Precinct 3C (Mail Ballot — Lake of the Woods Government Center, 206 8^th Ave SE, Baudette)

Precinct 3C consists of that portion of McDougald Township that lies South of State Trunk Highway 11, not including the City of Williams.

Precinct 3D (Mail Ballot — Lake of the Woods Government Center, 206 8^th Ave SE, Baudette)

Precinct 3D consists of Potamo Township and the Forest Area.

Precinct 4A (Mail Ballot — Lake of the Woods Government Center, 206 8^th Ave SE, Baudette)

Precinct 4A consists of Wheeler Township.

Precinct 4B (Mail Ballot — Lake of the Woods Government Center, 206 8^th Ave SE, Baudette)

Precinct 4B consists of Wabanica Township and that portion of Baudette Township that lies West of the Winter Road River and West of County Road 75, south of where it intersects the Winter Road River.

Precinct 4C (Mail Ballot — Lake of the Woods Government Center, 206 8^th Ave SE, Baudette)

Precinct 4C consists of that portion of McDougald Township that lies North of State Highway 11.

Precinct 5A (Mail Ballot — Lake of the Woods Government Center, 206 8^th Ave SE, Baudette)

Precinct 5A consists of Myhre, Chilgren, Lakewood, and Prosper Townships.

Precinct 5B (Mail Ballot — Lake of the Woods Government Center, 206 8^th Ave SE, Baudette)

Precinct 5B consists of Zippel Township.

Precinct 5C (Mail Ballot — Lake of the Woods Government Center, 206 8^th Ave SE, Baudette)

Precinct 5C consists of the Northwest Angle and Islands.

Attached to this resolution, for illustrative purposes, is a map showing said precincts and the location of each polling place.

The resolution was seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund the same being put to a vote, was unanimously carried.

Set Public Hearing- Re-Establishing Commissioner Districts

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to set a public hearing date for re-establishing Commissioner Districts on April 12, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

Post Prom Party Donation Request

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve a donation for the Post Prom Party in the amount of $200.00.

LOW Senior Citizens Council- Brink Center

Jenny Moorman and Gloriann Fischer came to the board to request additional Covid-19 relief funds to replace a loss in revenue the local Brink Center suffered from the pandemic. They gave an overview of the many services provided to the senior citizens in our community and different fundraisers they are excited to start in the spring.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to approve funds from the American Rescue Plan to the Brink Center in the amount of $20,000.

Public Works

Amendment to the Agenda

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to add the following to the agenda: Ditch Authority, Calcium Chloride, and Permission to advertise, interview and hire two part-time mowers and two part-time technicians. 

Ditch Authority

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously by roll call to close the regular meeting and open Ditch Authority for discussion.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously by roll call to approve funds out of County Ditch 1 for project SAP 039-608-025 in the amount of $41,707.50.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to close the Ditch Authority meeting and open the regular meeting.

Approval to Accept Bid 

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to accept the bid from KGM Contractors for project SAP 039-608-025 in the amount of $623,567.00.

Approval to Accept Bid

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to accept the bid from Gladen Construction for SAP 039-599-001 in the amount of $158,528.00.

Approval to Purchase a Gradation Shaker

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the purchase of a mechanical gradation shaker in the amount of $8,398.00.

Calcium Chloride Bids

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the Calcium Chloride bid on the South end from Knife River in the amount of $125,305.00.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the Calcium Chloride bid in the NorthWest Angle from Fort Distributors, LTD in the amount of $34,500.00.

Permission to Advertise, Interview, and Hire

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the request to advertise, interview and hire two part-time mowers at Grade 7, Step 1, 17.63 per hour, Points 191 and two part-time technicians at Grade 5, Step 1, 15.94 per hour, Points 172. 

Highway updates

Public Works Director Anthony Pirkl discussed estimates for Birch Beach and Sandy Shore roads to be paved and informed the board that the Highway Department was awarded the money to pay for the safe routes project. Safe Routes will build safer roads for getting to the school and for bus use.

Recess

A brief recess took place at 9:58 a.m. and reconvened at 10:07 a.m.

EDA

EDA Director Ryan Zemek gave an update to the board on the NWA forgivable loan fund. Consensus was made to pay back the loan but wait until March 31, 2022 in case there are any legislative changes.

Land & Water

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-03CU Lake Area Construction

Land and Water Director Josh Stromlund met with the board and presented a Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-03CU by Lake Area Construction: SW1/4 NW1/4, Section Twenty-Five (25), Township One-Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West- Parcel ID# 22.25.23.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to approve the following Findings of Fact/Conditional Use Permit #22-03CU for Lake Area Construction to allow the extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant:  Lake Area Construction Date:  March 8, 2022

Location/Legal Description:  SW1/4 NW1/4, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One-hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID# 22.25.23.000 

Project Proposal:  To allow applicant extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining 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?  The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners are clear about the values important to the county as it develops an approach to manage its land base. While those values include a respect for the environment and a desire to maintain the environmental quality that now exists, they also include a desire for local control over the issues that affect the county’s land. The values important to Lake of the Woods County is as follows:

• Conservation:  Of the resources in the county. Those resources would be used in a way that they remain healthy for future generations.
• Balance:  Between individual rights and the public’s welfare and between competing economic development and environmental protection objectives.

Within the context of its values and philosophy, Lake of the Woods County has developed a series of goals to guide the development of its land use plan. The goals pertinent to this request is as follows:

• Enhance the economic opportunities available for individuals and businesses in the county in ways that are compatible with long term environmental quality.
• Maintain the tax base of the county so quality services can be provided.

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

YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not? The site is buffered with natural vegetation and located over a quarter mile from a residence.

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? The site is not within a shoreland area and proposed use is contained within the boundaries of the site.

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

Why or why not?  The proposed extractive use will adversely affect the site’s existing topography and vegetative cover. However, the site’s location, vegetative buffer, and the limited amount of resources to be extracted offset the alterations proposed.

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

Why or why not? The site’s location is not within a floodplain and/or floodway.

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

YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  The site’s erosion potential is minimal due to the existing vegetative buffer and any sediment transport is fully contained within the boundaries of the property.

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

Why or why not?  Township Road 96 is located on west side of property.

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

Why or why not?  The property is isolated and a natural vegetative buffer is intact.

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

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? The property location is not within a shoreland area.

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? There will be no liquid waste generated from this project proposal.

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? The property location is not within a shoreland area.

12. Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X) Why or why not? The project proposal doesn’t include a water supply or sewage treatment systems.

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? The project proposal will not generate additional watercraft.

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? No storage tanks are associated with this project proposal.

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?  A natural vegetative buffer is intact.

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 signs are associated with the project proposal.

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? The amount of additional traffic would be considered normal as to the location of the proposed site. Parking on the site is not an issue as there is more than enough space to accommodate the equipment used to extract and haul the material.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  _____________________________________________

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

March 8, 2022 _____________________________________

Date James Nordlof

        Chair, County Board

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

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-04 Weston Johnson

Land and Water Director Josh Stromlund met with the board and presented a Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-04CU by Weston Johnson: NE ¼ SW 1/4 – Parcel ID #28.16.31.000, N ½ NW 1/4, Less Deeded, S ½ NW ¼- Parcel ID #28.16.21.000, and W ½ NE ¼- Parcel ID #28.16.12.000 in Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred-Sixty (160 North, Range Thirty-Three (33) West. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining, washing, and bituminous material, in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the following Findings of Fact/Conditional Use Permit #22-04CU for Weston Johnson to allow extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining, washing, and bituminous material, in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2). 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant:  Weston Johnson Date:  March 8, 2022

Location/Legal Description:  NE¼SW¼ -Parcel ID# 28.16.31.000, N½NW¼, Less Deeded, S½ NW¼ – Parcel ID# 28.16.21.000, and W½ NE¼ – Parcel ID# 28.16.12.000 in Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred-Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West.

Project Proposal:  To allow applicant extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining, washing, and bituminous material, 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?  The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners are clear about the values important to the county as it develops an approach to manage its land base. While those values include a respect for the environment and a desire to maintain the environmental quality that now exists, they also include a desire for local control over the issues that affect the county’s land. The values important to Lake of the Woods County is as follows:

• Conservation:  Of the resources in the county. Those resources would be used in a way that they remain healthy for future generations.
• Balance:  Between individual rights and the public’s welfare and between competing economic development and environmental protection objectives.

Within the context of its values and philosophy, Lake of the Woods County has developed a series of goals to guide the development of its land use plan. The goals pertinent to this request is as follows:

• Enhance the economic opportunities available for individuals and businesses in the county in ways that are compatible with long term environmental quality.
• Maintain the tax base of the county so quality services can be provided.

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

YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not? The site is buffered with natural vegetation along County Road 14 and along the northern property line. The proposed wash plant is to recirculate within the boundaries of the site and not discharge to a natural drainageway. The proposed bituminous plant would be general down wind of the residence located north of the property.

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? The site is not within a shoreland area and proposed use is contained within the boundaries of the site. The proposed wash plant is to recirculate within the boundaries of the site and not discharge to a natural drainageway.

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

Why or why not?  The proposed extractive use will adversely affect the site’s existing topography and vegetative cover. However, the site’s location, vegetative buffer, and the limited amount of resources to be extracted offset the alterations proposed.

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

Why or why not? The site’s location is not within a floodplain and/or floodway.

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

YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  The site’s erosion potential is minimal due to the existing vegetative buffer and any sediment transport is fully contained within the boundaries of the property. The proposed wash plant is to recirculate within the boundaries of the site and not discharge to a natural drainageway.

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

Why or why not?  The access to and from the site is off of County Road 65 and then a private roadway.

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

Why or why not?  The property location is isolated, surrounded by farmland and pasture, and a natural vegetative buffer is intact.

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

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? The property location is not within a shoreland area.

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? There will be no liquid waste generated from this project proposal.

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? The property location is not within a shoreland area.

12. Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X) Why or why not? The project proposal doesn’t include a water supply or sewage treatment systems.

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? The project proposal will not generate additional watercraft.

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? No storage tanks are associated with this project proposal.

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?  A natural vegetative buffer is intact.

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 signs are associated with the project proposal.

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? The amount of additional traffic would be considered normal as to the location of the proposed site. Parking on the site is not an issue as there is more than enough space to accommodate the equipment used to extract and haul the material.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  _____________________________________________

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

March 8, 2022 _____________________________________

Date James Nordlof

        Chair, County Board

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

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-05 Olson Construction, LLC

Land and Water Director Josh Stromlund met with the board and presented a Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-05CU by Olson Construction, LLC: NW ¼ NW ¼, Less the East 165.5’ in Section Twenty-Three (23), Township One Hundred-Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining, washing, and bituminous material, in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the following Findings of Fact/Conditional Use Permit #22-05CU for Olson

Construction, LLC. to allow extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining, washing, and bituminous material, in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2). 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant:  Olson Construction, LLC Date:  March 8, 2022

Location/Legal Description:  NW¼NW¼, Less the East 165.5’ in Section Twenty-three (23), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West

Project Proposal:  To allow applicant extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining, washing, and bituminous material, 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?  The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners are clear about the values important to the county as it develops an approach to manage its land base. While those values include a respect for the environment and a desire to maintain the environmental quality that now exists, they also include a desire for local control over the issues that affect the county’s land. The values important to Lake of the Woods County is as follows:

• Conservation:  Of the resources in the county. Those resources would be used in a way that they remain healthy for future generations.
• Balance:  Between individual rights and the public’s welfare and between competing economic development and environmental protection objectives.

Within the context of its values and philosophy, Lake of the Woods County has developed a series of goals to guide the development of its land use plan. The goals pertinent to this request is as follows:

• Enhance the economic opportunities available for individuals and businesses in the county in ways that are compatible with long term environmental quality.
• Maintain the tax base of the county so quality services can be provided.

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

YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not? The site is buffered with a 6-8 foot berm along County Road 3 and 181. The proposed wash plant is to recirculate within the boundaries of the site and not discharge to a natural drainageway. The proposed bituminous plant would be general down wind of the residence located north and northeast of the property.

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? The site is not within a shoreland area and proposed use is contained within the boundaries of the site due to the berms present. The proposed wash plant is to recirculate within the boundaries of the site and not discharge to a natural drainageway.

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

Why or why not?  The proposed extractive use will adversely affect the site’s existing topography and vegetative cover. However, the site’s location, berm and vegetative buffer, and the limited amount of resources to be extracted offset the alterations proposed.

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

Why or why not? The site’s location is not within a floodplain and/or floodway.

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

YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  The site’s erosion potential is minimal due to the existing berms and vegetative buffer. Any sediment transport is fully contained within the boundaries of the property. The proposed wash plant is to recirculate within the boundaries of the site and not discharge to any drainageway.

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

Why or why not?  The access to and from the site is off of County Road 3 or 181.

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

Why or why not?  The property location is in an area of forestland, pasture, farmland and rural residences. The rural residences have natural vegetative buffer/screening from the proposed project site.

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

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? The property location is not within a shoreland area.

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? There will be no liquid waste generated from this project proposal.

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? The property location is not within a shoreland area.

12. Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X) Why or why not? The project proposal doesn’t include a water supply or sewage treatment systems.

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? The project proposal will not generate additional watercraft.

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? No storage tanks are associated with this project proposal.

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?  A berm and natural vegetation buffer screens adjacent neighboring property from the project site.

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 signs are associated with the project proposal.

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? The amount of additional traffic would be considered normal as to the location of the proposed site. Parking on the site is not an issue as there is more than enough space to accommodate the equipment used to extract and haul the material.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  _____________________________________________

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

March 8, 2022 _____________________________________

Date James Nordlof

        Chair, County Board

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

Maintenance

Boiler Repair

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the repair of the boiler up to $9,000.

Sheriff

Stonegarden Grant

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to approve the 2020 Stonegarden Grant Contract Agreement and for Vice-Chair Ed Arnesen and Sheriff Gary Fish to sign the same.

Legislative Update

Commissioner Ed Arnesen gave an update from the AMC Conference he attended. Topics included: PILT Funds, Tourism Bureau legislation, and Lobby seeking bonding money for Law Enforcement.

Attorney Client Privilege- Closed Session

Motion 

Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to close the regular meeting at 10:52 a.m. and open the closed session pursuant to MN Statute 13D.03B Attorney Client Privilege. 

The following were present: Commissioners: Joe Grund, Cody Hasbargen, Ed Arnesen, County Auditor/Treasurer Lorene Hanson, and Sheriff Gary Fish.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to close the closed session at 12:35 p.m. and reopen the regular meeting.

RECESS

With no further business before the Board, Vice-Chair Ed Arnesen called the meeting to recess at 12:36.

Attest: March 8, 2022

______________________________ _________________________________

County Auditor/Treasurer, Lorene Hanson Vice-Chair Ed Arnesen