Skip to content

COUNTY BOARD

May, 2016

Commissioner Proceedings

May 24, 2016

The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at Lake of the Woods County Government Center in the Commissioners Room.

Call to Order

Chairman Moorman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited with the following members present: Commissioners Thomas Hanson, Ed Arnesen, Patty Beckel, and Ken Moorman. Absent, Buck Nordlof.  Also present were: County Auditor/Treasurer Lorene Hanson, Deputy Auditor /Treasurer Janet Rudd, County Attorney, James Austad and Woody Fiala.

Approval of Agenda

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Beckel and carried unanimously to approve the agenda with the following additions: AMC District Meeting.

Approval of Consent Agenda- none 

Approval of Minutes

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Beckel, seconded by Commissioner Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve the official and summarized minutes of May 10, 2016.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Social Service Director, Amy Ballard met with the board requesting approval of claims.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Beckel, seconded by Commissioner Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve the following claims against the county: Commissioners Warrants:7,686.88; Commissioners Warrants:10,238.02.

AUDITOR/TREASURER

Claims

County Auditor/Treasurer, Lorene Hanson met with the board requesting approval of claims.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Beckel and carried unanimously to approve the claims against the county as follows: Revenue $ 65,012.47, Road & Bridge $20,014.63.

WARRANTS FOR PUBLICATION

Warrants Approved On 5/24/2016 For Payment 5/27/2016

Vendor Name                                                    Amount

Burg Electronic Recovery                                                   16,441.60

Contech Engineered Solutions LLC                                  14,318.80

Hasler                                                                                      6,000.00

Marvin Home Center                                                              3,702.64

MN Dept of Employment & Economic Develop                 6,232.00

NetWork Center Communications                                       5,600.00

North East Technical Service,Inc                                        4,691.50

Northwest Community Action, Inc                                       2,354.00

Rinke-Noonan                                                                       6,447.50

43  Payments less than 2000   19,239.06

Final Total:   85,027.10

Further moved to authorize the payment of the following auditor warrants: May 11, $ 269,170.78, May 11, $128,473.01, May 18, $51,349.10.    

Liquor License

County Auditor/Treasurer, Lorene Hanson met with the board and presented the 2016 Liquor License, Cigarette License and 3.2 Malt liquor License to the board for their approval.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Beckel and carried unanimously, with Commissioner Arnesen abstaining to approve the following 2016 On/Off Sale and Sunday Liquor License; On-Sale Sunday Liquor License; Off-Sale Only, Cigarette Licenses and 3.2 on and Off Sale Malt Liquor License as permitted by County Sheriff, Gary Fish and County Attorney, James Austad:

 On/Off Sale and Sunday Liquor License:

Adrian’s Resort, DACH -Angle Inn Lodge, Ballard’s Resort, Borderview Lodge, Jerry’s Restaurant and Lounge,  Morris Point Lakeview Lodge, PCE-Riverbend Resort, Rock Harbor Lodge, J&L Hennum-Sportsman’s Lodge, MAWRLT Inc.-Wigwam Resort, Zippel Bay Resort, Sportsman’s Oak Island Lodge; Bugsy’s on Bostic, Sunset Lodge;

On-Sale and Sunday Liquor License:

First Ice Enterprises-Cyrus Resort, Flag Island, Bar and Grill, Ken-Mar-Ke Resort,  Wheelers Point Resort, Bathel Enterprises- Slims Resort;

Off-Sale Only:

Log Cabin Liquors Inc

Wash N Go

Cigarette License:

Ballard’s Resort, Bay Store, Borderview Lodge, Cenex, City of Williams, City of Baudette, First Ice Enterprises-Cyrus Resort, Border Bait, Dicks Head Shop,  Holiday Station, Howard’s, Jeanette Mcatee, Lake of the Woods Foods, Log Cabin Bait, Log Cabin Liquors, Long Point Resort, Morris Point Lakeview Lodge, Rock Harbor Lodge, Slims Resort, Sportsman’s Lodge, Sportsman’s of Oak Island Lodge, Sunset Lodge, Andy’s Garages, Wheeler’s Point, Zippel Bay Resort;

 3.2 On-Sale Malt Liquor:

Long Point Resort, Ships Wheel;

3.2 Off-Sale Malt Liquor:

Angle Outpost, Bay Store, Cyrus Resort, Border Bait, Long Point Resort, Rock Harbor Lodge, Log Cabin Bait,

Secretary of State- Election Division

County Auditor/Treasurer, Lorene Hanson met with the board and presented a Joint Powers Agreement to the board from the Secretary of State- Election Division to engage in assistance as deemed necessary in election recount services.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve the State of Minnesota Joint Powers Agreement between the office of the Secretary of State and Lake of the Woods County Auditor/Treasurer to engage in assistance as deemed necessary in election recount services effective November 1, 2016 thru December 31, 2016 and authorize County Auditor/Treasurer to sign.

Grant-In-Aid Trail Permit

County Auditor/Treasurer, Lorene Hanson met with the board requesting authorization to sign the Grant-In- Aid Trail Permit with the State of Minnesota, DNR Division and Lake of the Woods County for the use of county owned land for State Trail System expiring June 30, 2024.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Hanson and carried unanimously to authorize County Auditor/Treasurer, Lorene Hanson to sign the Grant-In-Aid Trail Permit for State Trail System expiring June 30, 2024.

SHERIFF

County Sheriff, Gary Fish met with the board requesting approval for the 2015 Operation Stonegarden Grant No. A-OPSG-2015-LOTW-CO-005 in the amount of $62,143.00 and approval to purchase a squad car.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Beckel and carried unanimously to approve the 2015 Stonegarden grant in the amount of $62,143.00 and authorize Sheriff Gary Fish and Chairman Moorman to sign.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Beckel, seconded by Commissioner Hanson and carried unanimously to approve the purchase of a squad car in the amount of $28,240.57 and Sheriff equipment $9,208 with a total of $37,448.57 with $24,692.00 from the 2015 Stonegarden Grant and the remainder from the Sheriff’s budget.

Post Board  Peace Officers Standards and Training

Chairman Moorman, on behalf of the County board congratulated Sheriff Gary Fish on the review for compliance of mandated employee training and department policies which his office passed.

COUNTY SURVEYOR

County Surveyor, Donn Rasmussen met with the board to discuss the Kelly Creek Road Vacation and the need for surveying the private driveway, locating utilities, and proposed width of the private driveway. Donn informed the board that he should have this all accomplished by the June 28, 2016 board meeting.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Beckel, seconded by Commissioner Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve up to $2,500 from the County Development account for the surveying work that will be completed by Donn Rasmussen for the Kelly Creek Road.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Arnesen seconded by Commissioner Beckel and carried unanimously to rescind the motion made on May 10, 2016 board meeting for Kelly Creek road vacation and reset the Kelly Creek Road  vacation Public Hearing  to June 28, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.

 RECESS

The meeting was called to recess at 9:50 a.m. and reconvened at 10:00 a.m. 

LAND AND WATER PLANNING

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Requests

Applicant #16-02CU by S&M Resorts LLC

Land and Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund met with the board and presented a conditional use permit for   S&M Resorts LLC- Mike and Sheila Mayer: the South 180 feet of the North 2060 feet of the W ½ NE1/4 of Section 28, Township 162 North, Range 32 West, (Wheeler), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota, EXCEPT that part thereof lying westerly of a described line- Parcel Number 19.28.13.030. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to conduct a commercial business consisting of fish house rental storage in a Rural Residential District. Letters from Land Owners were acknowledged. Josh informed the board that the Planning Commission approved this permit with conditions.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Beckel, seconded by Commissioner Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve the following Conditional Use Permit with conditions:

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant:  S & M Resorts, LLC (Mike and Sheila Mayer)                Date:  May 4, 2016

Location/Legal Description:  The S 180’ of the N 2060’ of the W ½ of the NE ¼, less deeded in Section 28,     T. 162N, R. 32W (Wheeler), Parcel Number 19.28.13.040.

Project Proposal:  To allow the applicant to conduct a commercial business consisting of fish house storage in a Rural Residential District.

  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, tourist, fish house rental area.

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

YES (  )  NO (  ) N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

3. Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading?                                                    YES (  ) NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

7. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?               YES (  )  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?  With conditions.

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 (  )  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 (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  See conditions.

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?  No signage.

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?  No customers on lot. No parking necessary.

If all answers to the Findings of Fact-Criteria are either “Yes” or are “Not Applicable” to the request, the criteria for granting the conditional use permit have been met. The conditional use permit will maintain the goals of safety, health, and general welfare of the public. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

  1. A visual barrier must be established and maintained on three (3) sides (North, South and West) of the storage area with a live vegetative barrier not less than five (5) feet high and spaced no further apart than eight (8) feet. This vegetative barrier is to be planted in a double row and staggered to provide maximum visual screening. Planting of said vegetative barrier is to be conducted no later than December 31, 2016.
  2. If live vegetation is unable to grow due to wet conditions, an eight (8) foot high fence may be constructed.
  3. Storage area is to be located on the Easterly four-hundred (400) feet of the described property.
  4. Damage caused by business activities, and/or general maintenance of the private road, shall be the responsibility of the landowner.
  5. No occupation is allowed of said fish houses.
  6. Off-season storage of business related equipment must be stored out of sight, either inside a structure or within the fish house storage area.
  7. No more than 40 fish houses to be stored within the storage area.
  8. The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioner’s may review and/or amend the conditions placed upon approval within one (1) year of the date of approval.

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

                                                                                    _____________________________________

                                                                                                            Kenneth Moorman

                                                                                                        Chair, County Board

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

Application #16-03-CU by Twin Island Sleepers

Land and Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund met with the board and presented a conditional use permit for Rodney Thompson: Twin Island Sleepers (Rodney Thompson) Location/Legal Description:  Access – A 2.25 acre tract in Gov’t Lot 4 of Section 6, T. 163N, R. 33W (Prosper), Parcel Number 16.06.13.030. (Landowner is Duane Thompson). Storage – The West 99’ of the West 264’ of the East 792’ of the NE ¼ SW ¼ of Section 6, T. 163N, R. 33W (Prosper), Parcel Number 16.06.31.031. (Landowner is Rodney Thompson).  To allow the applicant to conduct a commercial business consisting of an office to sell bait and tackle and provide a lake access to rent out day and sleeper fish houses in a Residential District. Also, to allow the applicant to conduct a commercial business consisting of rental fish house storage in a Rural Residential District.  Letters from Land Owners were acknowledged that were received prior to meeting. Josh informed the board that the Planning Commission approved this permit with conditions.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Beckel to approve the following Condition Use Permit with conditions. Voting for: Commissioners Arnesen, Beckel, and Moorman. Voting against: Commissioner Hanson.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant:  Twin Island Sleepers (Rodney Thompson)                     Date:  May 24, 2016

Location/Legal Description:  Access – A 2.25 acre tract in Gov’t Lot 4 of Section 6, T. 163N, R. 33W (Prosper), Parcel Number 16.06.13.030. (Landowner is Duane Thompson).

                                               Storage – The West 99’ of the West 264’ of the East 792’ of the NE ¼ SW ¼ of Section 6, T. 163N, R. 33W (Prosper), Parcel Number 16.06.31.031. (Landowner is Rodney Thompson).

Project Proposal:  To allow the applicant to conduct a commercial business consisting of an office to sell bait and tackle and provide a lake access to rent out day and sleeper fish houses in a Residential District. Also, to allow the applicant to conduct a commercial business consisting of rental fish house storage in a Rural Residential District.

  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 proximity of Commercial Zoned property which has a resort business.

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

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

3.  Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading?                                                    YES (  ) NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not?  Minor alteration for access to lake.

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?  County road up to site.

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

Why or why not?  In close proximity with Commercial Zoned property.

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

                                                                                                                        YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Will provide access to lake for clients.

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 (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  MPCA requires that notification and permits is above/below ground tanks are 500 gallons or more. Currently, a 300 gallon above ground fuel tank is utilized.

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?  Fish house storage must be buffered from sight by vegetative cover.

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?  One (1) sign at storage area and one (1) at lake access. Neither to exceed four (4) feet by six (6) feet.

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 at access or storage only.

If all answers to the Findings of Fact-Criteria are either “Yes” or are “Not Applicable” to the request, the criteria for granting the conditional use permit have been met. The conditional use permit will maintain the goals of safety, health, and general welfare of the public. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

  1. One (1) sign is allowed at each location, storage and access areas. Signs may not exceed four (4) feet by six (6) feet.
  2. If an above ground or below ground storage tank for fuel reaches the thresholds for MPCA notification or requires a permit, applicant must meet the requirement of the MPCA.
  3. The fuel tank, either above ground or below ground, must be of double walled construction.
  4. Lake access will be limited to customers renting fish houses from Twin Island Sleepers only. Access is not open to the public.
  5. No occupation of fish houses is allowed once on the land.
  6. Fish house storage must be buffered by vegetative cover, out of normal view from county road.
  7. Maximum number of fish houses will be set at 25.
  8. Business operation is allowed between December 1 to March 31, which includes the fish houses and the bait/tackle shop.
  9. Parking on the access site will be limited to fifteen (15) vehicles. Additional parking will be acceptable on the lake or up to ten (10) vehicles at the fish house storage site.
  10. The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioner’s may review and/or amend the conditions placed upon approval within one (1) year of the date of approval.

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

                                                                                    _____________________________________

                                                                                                            Kenneth Moorman

                                                                                                        Chair, County Board

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

Application #16-04-CU by George Swentik

Land and Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund met with the board and presented a conditional use permit for George Swentik:  Lot 4, Block 1 of Y-Not Jochim’s Retreat Subdivision in Section 20, T. 161N, R. 31W (Baudette). Parcel Number 24.61.01.040.   To allow the applicant to move more than ten cubic yards of material in the shoreland of the Winter Road River for the purpose of a private access in a Residential District. Comments were heard from the public. Josh informed the board that the Planning Commission approved this permit with condition.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Beckel, seconded by Commissioner Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve the Conditional Use Permit with conditions:

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: George Swentik Date: May 24, 2016

Location/Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 1 of Y-Not Jochim’s Retreat Subdivision in Section 20, T. 161N, R. 31W (Baudette). Parcel Number 24.61.01.040.

Project Proposal: To allow the applicant to move more than ten cubic yards of material in the shoreland of the Winter Road River for the purpose of a private access in a Residential District.

  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? Residential access.

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? Applicant will address with vegetative growth and straw.

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? Addressed in proposal.

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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Will use vegetation and straw to prevent erosion.

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? 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? River 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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? Private use only.

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? ______________________________________________________

If all answers to the Findings of Fact-Criteria are either “Yes” or are “Not Applicable” to the request, the criteria for granting the conditional use permit have been met. The conditional use permit will maintain the goals of safety, health, and general welfare of the public.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

  1. Personal use only and storage of personal equipment.

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

_____________________________________

Kenneth Moorman

Chair, County Board

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

Application #16-05-CU by George Swentik

Land and Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund met with the board and presented a conditional use permit for Scott Pahlen: Lot 12, Block 1 of the Sandy Shores Subdivision in Section 21, T. 163N, R. 33W (Prosper). Parcel Number 16.55.01.120 Project Proposal: To allow the applicant to move more than ten cubic yards of material in the shoreland of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of a shore stabilization project in a Residential District. No comments were heard or letters received. Josh informed the board that the Planning Commission approved this permit with condition.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve the Conditional use Permit with condition:

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

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? Residential shoreland stabilization.

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? Shoreland stabilization.

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? It will address shoreline issues.

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? Addresses high water and shoreland erosion.

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? See #5 above.

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? 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 stabilization.

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? ______________________________________________________

If all answers to the Findings of Fact-Criteria are either “Yes” or are “Not Applicable” to the request, the criteria for granting the conditional use permit have been met. The conditional use permit will maintain the goals of safety, health, and general welfare of the public.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

  1. Completion of project by December 31, 2016.

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

___________________________________

Kenneth Moorman

           Chair, County Board

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

One Watershed, One Plan

Land and Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund met with the board and presented a resolution of One Watershed, One Plan which is to help align local water planning on major watershed boundaries with state strategies towards prioritized, targeted, and measurable implementation plans.

The following resolution was offered by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Arnesen and carried unanimously to adopt the following:

                                                            RESOLUTION 2016-05-02

Resolution to support a Lake of the Woods Watershed

One Watershed, One Plan project.

WHEREAS, the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources has developed policies for coordination and development of comprehensive watershed management plans, also known as One Watershed, One Plan, consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B.801, Comprehensive Watershed Management Planning Program; and

WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B.301, Comprehensive Local Water Management Act, authorizes Minnesota Counties to develop and implement a local water management plan; and

WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103D.401, Watershed Management Plan, authorizes Minnesota Watershed Districts to develop and implement a watershed management plan; and

WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103C.331, subdivision 11, Comprehensive Plan, authorizes Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Districts to develop and implement a comprehensive plan; and

WHEREAS, the counties, soil and water conservation districts, and watershed districts within the Lake of the Woods Watershed (#51) as delineated in the attached One Watershed, One Plan Suggested Boundary Map, have interest in developing a comprehensive watershed management plan for this area.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Lake of the Woods County recognizes and supports watershed-scale planning efforts consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B.801, also known as One Watershed, One Plan; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Lake of the Woods County welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with the counties, soil and water conservation districts, and watershed districts within the Lake of the Woods Watershed for watershed-scale planning efforts in the future; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Lake of the Woods County supports an application to the Board of Water and Soil Resources for a planning grant to develop a comprehensive watershed management plan and anticipates entering into a Memorandum of Agreement with the counties, soil and water conservation districts, and watershed districts within the Lake of the Woods Watershed, to collaborate on this effort, pending selection as a recipient of a planning grant.

ZIPPEL BAY LETTER

Land and Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund presented a letter to the board for approval to send a letter to the State of MN requesting  them to dredge Zippel Bay.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Beckel and carried unanimously to approve the letter for the proposed Zippel Bay Dredging and authorize Chairman Moorman to sign.

ATV ORDINANCE

The board discussed reviewing the county’s ATV Ordinance.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Beckel and carried unanimously to set a Public Hearing to revisit the ATV Ordinance for June 28, 2016.

CORRESPONDENCE/COMMITTEE UPDATES

The board reviewed the following: Scott Kern Letter, North Star Electric Cooperative Open House.

Recess

With no further business before the board, Chairman Moorman called the meeting to recess at 11:39 a.m.

Attest:                                                                                     Approved: June 14, 2016

_______________________                                                  _________________________________

Lorene Hanson,                                                                       Chairman of the Board, Ken MoormanCounty Auditor/Treasurer