Skip to content

COUNTY BOARD

November 15, 2022

COMMISSIONER PROCEEDINGS

November 15,2022

The Lake of The Woods County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at Lake of the Woods County Government Center in the Commissioners’ Room.

Call To Order

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

Approval of Agenda

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to approve the agenda with the following changes: Add: Land Lease, Permission to Advertise, Interview, & Hire HEO, Permission to Hire Engineering Technician I. 

Approval of Minutes

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to approve the minutes from October 25, 2022.

Social Services

Claims

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to approve the following claims: Commissioners Warrants $27,463.04; Commissioners Warrants $5,627.47; Commissioners Warrants $18,291.68.

Auditor/Treasurer

Claims

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to approve the claims against the County as follows: Revenue $64,129.92; Road & Bridge $40,180.80; County Development $3,355.00; Joint Ditch $1,050.00; Solid Waste $33,421.51; EDA $67,469.25.

WARRANTS FOR PUBLICATION

Warrants Approved On 11/15/2022 For Payment 11/18/2022

Vendor Name Amount

ARRO of the North, LLC 2,200.00

Baudette/City Of 4,919.00

Cenex Co-Op Services, Inc. 19,744.26

DSC Communications 2,158.00

Government Management Group, Inc 3,750.00

Hoffman, Philipp & Martell, PLLC 8,325.00

Howard’s Oil Company 7,514.38

Integris LLC 12,027.36

Liberty Tire Recycling, LLC 4,120.00

LOW County Auditor-Treasurer 60,000.00

LOW Highway Dept 2,867.50

Mar-Kit Landfill 13,451.50

Motorola Solutions, Inc 6,594.50

Msop-Mn Sex Offender Prgrm-462 2,616.90

Nordlof/Tanner 4,028.80

Northern Light Region 3,391.00

Powerplan 2,679.00

R & Q Trucking, Inc 3,055.00

Royal Tire Inc 5,154.83

SeaChange Print Innovations 2,127.34

Tyler Technologies, Inc 4,312.50

84 Payments less than 2000 34,569.61

Final Total: 209,606.48

Further moved to authorize the payment of the following auditor warrants: October 26, 2022 for $381,751.95; November 2, 2022 for $466,268.61; November 7, 2022 for $401,365.75; November 9,2022 for $51,649.28.

Set Work Session

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to set a work session with Koochiching County for November 29, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. at the Koochiching County Courthouse in International Falls, MN. 

Lake of the Woods Food Shelf

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to approve a donation of $1200.00 to the Lake of the Woods Food Shelf for the purchase of a new freezer to be paid for out of the American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds.

Rainy River Resort Liquor License

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to approve the application for a liquor license from Rainy River Resort. 

Land Lease

The board discussed approximately 13 acres of land that is owned by the county.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to advertise for bids for the 13 acres of county owned land for a minimum of $30.00 per acre on parcel #18.2342.000.

Approval of Bid 

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to accept the RFP from RB Farms Garrett Ravndalen for the agriculture land lease at $30.00 per acre for the following parcels: 14.2800.109, 14.2700.009, and 14.2200.009.

Public Works

Highway

Final SAP 039-599-001

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to approve the final payment for project SAP 039-599-001for Gladen Construction, Inc. of Laporte, MN in the total amount of $158,528.00 and hereby authorize final payment of $7,926.40.

Todd F. Retirement

County Engineer Anthony Pirkl informed the board that Todd Fadness will be retiring on December 23, 2022 after 40 years with the county.

Permission to Advertise, Interview, & Hire

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously to approve to advertise, interview, & hire for a heavy equipment operator. 

FEMA

County Engineer Anthony Pirkl gave an update on a meeting with FEMA. He informed the board that FEMA was very impressed with how organized the county is and we should be able to get reimbursements. 

Permission to Hire 

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to hire Dylan Hancharyk as Engineering Technician/Inspector I at Grade 10, Step 1, $20.59 per hour at 234 points. 

Solid Waste

County Engineer Anthony Pirkl gave an update on various topics that included: PFAS testing, MPCA surprise inspection, and the Tub Grinder sale. The MPCA inspection went very well and the landfill passed. There will be more updates to come on PFAS testing and the Tub Grinder Sale. 

Sheriff

Government Center North 

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to approve an amount up to $25,000 to purchase equipment for the interview and conference rooms at the Government Center North building. 

Land & Water

Land & Water Director Josh Stromlund presented the following CUPs for board approval:

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #22-14CU by Blue Line Consulting, LLC

The NW¼NW¼, Section Nine (9), Township One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID # 17.09.22.000. 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 Short-Term Vacation Rental in a Rural Residential Development (R2) Zoning District

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to approve Conditional Use Permit #22-14CU/Findings of Fact by Blue Line Consulting, LLC to operate a Short-Term Vacation Rental in a Rural Residential Development (R2) Zoning District with the following conditions:

  1. The Conditional Use Permit Terminates on transfer of property.
  2. Quiet time from 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.
  3. Must post local contact information
  4. Must meet Minnesota Department of Health Regulations

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant:  Blue Line Consulting, LLC (David Hahn) Date:  November 15, 2022

Location/Legal Description:  NW¼NW¼, Section 9, T. 162N, R. 34W – Parcel ID # 17.09.22.000

Project Proposal:  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 Short-Term Vacation Rental in a Rural Residential Development (R2) Zoning District.

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO (  )  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not? Rural Residential development.
  2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare?
    1. YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)
    2. 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)
    1. 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)
    1. 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)
    1. 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)
    1. Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________
  7. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?     YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not? Access via 44th Street NW.
  8. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not? Rural residential.
  9. Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?
    1. YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)
    1. 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 (  )
    1. Why or why not? Sized for a 5-bedroom dwelling.
  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)
    1. Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________
  12. Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not? Private well and septic.
  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)
    1. 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)
    1. Why or why not? ____________________________________________________________________
  15. Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?
    1. YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)
    1. Why or why not? Not necessary.
  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? 
    1. YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)
    1. Why or why not? Not planned or needed.
  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 (  )
    1. Why or why not?  On-site parking.

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. The Conditional Use Permit terminates upon sale or transfer of the property.
  2. Quiet time from 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.
  3. Must post local contact information in the dwelling.
  4. Must meet Minnesota Department of Health regulations.

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

November 15, 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 #22-15CU by Dale and Connie Peterson  

A tract in the Northeast Corner of Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID # 14.05.31.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct an inland harbor connected to Lake of the Woods and to cumulatively move more than the allowed amounts of material within and outside of the shore impact zone. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to approve Conditional Use Permit #22-15CU/Findings of Fact by Dale and Connie Peterson to construct an inland harbor connected to Lake of the Woods and to cumulatively move more than the allowed amounts of material within and outside of the shore impact zone with the following conditions:

  1. Follow the permitted harbor design approved by the agencies
  2. The cumulative movement of material is allowed for dike construction and rock rip rap to protect property from high-water and/or flooding.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant:  Dale and Connie Peterson Date:  November 15, 2022

Location/Legal Description:  A tract in the Northeast Corner of Government Lot 3, Section Five (5), Township One hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID # 14.05.31.010

Project Proposal:  Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to construct an inland harbor connected to Lake of the Woods and to cumulatively move more than the allowed amounts of material within and outside of the shore impact zone. 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 (  )
    1. Why or why not?  Resort development, additional safe harbor.
  2.  Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare?
    1. YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)
    1. 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 (  )
    1. Why or why not?  Oversight by DNR and Corps of Engineers, permits all in place.
  4. Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover?                                            YES (  )  NO (X)  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not?  They will be affected but has been permitted. 
  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 (  )
    1. Why or why not?  Shoreline of Lake of the Woods.
  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 (  )
    1. Why or why not?  Via DNR and Corps permits and design.
  7. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?     YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not? Access via County Road 17.
  8. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not?  Resort area.
  9. Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not?  Creation of a safe harbor.
  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)
    1. 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)
    1. Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________
  12. Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)
    1. 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 (  )
    1. Why or why not?  Campsite boats are already using lake and permit limits number of slips in harbor.
  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)
    1. Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________
  15. Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?
    1. YES (  )  NO (X)  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not?  None needed.
  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? 
    1. YES (  )  NO (X)  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not? None needed.
  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 (X)  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not?  No new traffic.

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. Follow the permitted harbor design approved by the agencies.
  2. The cumulative movement of material is allowed for dike construction and rock rip rap to protect property from high-water and/or flooding.

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

November 15, 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 #22-16CU by Stacey Manning

Lot 1, Block 3 River Oaks Plat, Section One (1), Township One hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West — Parcel ID# 23.52.03.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a Short-Term Vacation Rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District within the shoreland area of the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve Conditional Use Permit #22-16CU/Findings of Fact by Stacey Manning to operate a Short-Term Vacation Rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District within the shoreland area of the Rainy River with the following conditions:

  1. The septic system must be upgraded within two (2) years from September 20, 2022.
  2. The Conditional Use Permit terminates upon sale or transfer of the property.
  3. No on street parking
  4. Must post local contacts and emergency numbers in dwelling.
  5. Must follow tenant rules listed in application and quiet hours are from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
  6. Must meet Minnesota Department of Health Regulations. 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant:  Stacey and Connie Manning Date:  November 15, 2022

Location/Legal Description:  Lot 1, Block 3, River Oaks Plat in Section 1, T. 161N, R. 32W – Parcel ID # 23.52.03.010

Project Proposal:  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 Short-Term Vacation Rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District.

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO (  )  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not? Within the growth corridor, vacation rental.
  2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare?
    1. YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)
    1. 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)
    1. 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)
    1. 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)
    1. 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)
    1. Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________
  7. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?     YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not? Access via Oak Harbor Drive.
  8. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not? Residential and commercial.
  9. Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)
    1. 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 (  )
    1. Why or why not? But needs to be upgraded.
  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)
    1. Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________
  12. Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )
    1. Why or why not? Private well and septic system.
  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)
    1. 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)
    1. Why or why not? _______________________________________________________________________
  15. Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?
    1. YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)
    1. 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? 
    1. YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)
    1. 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 (  )
    1. Why or why not?  On-site parking.

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. The septic system must be upgraded within two (2) years from September 20, 2022.
  2. The Conditional Use Permit terminates upon sale or transfer of the property.
  3. No on street parking.
  4. Must post local contacts and emergency numbers in dwelling.
  5. Must follow tenant rules listed in application and quiet hours are from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
  6. Must meet Minnesota Department of Health regulations.

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

November 15, 2022 _____________________________________

Date James Nordlof

        Chair, County Board

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

HOFFMAN, PHILIPP and MARTELL, PLLC
Audit Exit Review

Colleen Hoffman from Hoffman, Philipp and Martell, PLLC provided an audit exit review to the County Board of Commissioners.

RECESS

With no further business before the Board, Chair Buck Nordlof called the meeting to recess at 10:30 a.m.

Attest: November 29, 2022

______________________________ _________________________________

County Auditor/Treasurer, Lorene Hanson Chair James “Buck” Nordlof