Skip to content

COUNTY BOARD

September 14, 2021

Commissioner Proceedings

September 14, 2021

The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at Lake of the Woods County Government Center in the Commissioners’ Room. 

CALL TO ORDER

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the agenda with the following changes: Add – Public Works/Highway: Approve Final for SAP 039-633-003 and Designate CRRSAA Funds, Add – Board of Adjustment: Board Appointment.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried unanimously to approve the official and summarized minutes of August 24, 2021.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried unanimously to approve the official and summarized minutes of September 7, 2021.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Claims

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Buck Nordlof, seconded by Commissioner Ed Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve the following claims: Commissioners Warrants $9,372.00; Commissioners Warrants $3,109.18; Commissioners Warrants $20,328.73.

AUDITOR/TREASURER
Claims
Motion
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 $196,540.45; Road & Bridge $112,044.26; County Development $200; Joint Ditch $9,125; Solid Waste $49,647.44; EDA $3,337.86. 

WARRANTS FOR PUBLICATION

Warrants Approved On 9/14/2021 For Payment 9/17/2021

Vendor Name Amount

Allstates Pavement Recycling & Stab. Inc 17,757.07

Cenex Co-Op Services, Inc. 10,252.40

CentralSquare Technologies, LLC 138,296.48

Compudyne, Inc 12,924.85

Counties Providing Technology 3,860.00

FleetPride 3,008.96

Freeberg & Grund, Inc 27,471.65

Howard’s Oil Company 3,148.07

LOW Highway Dept 11,603.35

Mar-Kit Landfill 15,475.50

Olson Construction Bdt LLC 15,850.00

Plutko Plumbing & Heating 5,388.09

Powerplan 3,529.90

Titan Machinery – Roseau 3,400.90

Traffic Marking Service, Inc. 23,852.56

Voice Products 2,245.00

Walker Pipe & Supply 3,788.00

Wilkens Industries 27,930.11

Woody’s Service 4,184.81

WSB 6,932.50

57 Payments less than 2000   29,994.81

Final Total:                                                               $370,895.01

Further moved to authorize the payment of the following auditor warrants: August 25, 2021 for $312,731.31; August 26, 2021 for $244,626.93; August 27, 2021 for $1,609,810.00; September 1, 2021 for $252,568.37; September 2, 2021 for $1,770,275.37; September 8, 2021 for $352,419.26; September 8, 2021 for ($108.32).

Set Proposed Budget

Resolution

Resolution Adopting

Proposed 2022 Budget and Tax Levy

Resolution   2021-09-01

The following Resolution was proposed and moved for adoption by Commissioner Ed Arnesen:

WHEREAS, the Proposed County Budget for the year 2022 has been reviewed by the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners; and 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following Proposed Budget and Tax Levy is hereby adopted for the Lake of the Woods County for 2022:

Revenue Fund $ 1,912,390

Road & Bridge Fund $    449,580

Social Services Fund $    603,935

Economic Development Authority Fund $      60,000

2022 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy $ 3,025,905   

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following amounts be levied against the unorganized townships of Lake of the Woods County for 2022:

Twp Road & Bridge $   471,470* 

Twp Fire – Baudette $     25,000

Twp Fire – Williams $     16,274

Twp Fire – NW Angle $       6,500

Total $   519,244

2022

* $471,470 for Township Road & Bridge, includes $12,765 Admin of Township Roads (458,705+12,765=471,470)  

A public meeting to discuss the 2022 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy will be held on Tuesday, December 14, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. in the Lake of the Woods County Commissioners’ Room. 

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel, and the same being put to a vote, was unanimously carried. 

SET DATE FOR ASSESSOR WORK SESSION

A work session with the Assessor’s Office was scheduled for Tuesday, October 12th, following the Board Meeting, at 1:00 p.m.

EXTENSION COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT
Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Buck Nordlof, seconded by Commissioner Ed Arnesen and carried unanimously to appoint Colleen Stanton to the Extension Committee effective September 14, 2021.

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPOINTMENT

Motion
Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to appoint Nancy Dunnell to the Board of Adjustments effective September 14, 2021.

NORTHWEST ANGLE EDGE RIDERS
Gambling Application
Resolution
The following resolution was offered by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Ed Arnesen and carried unanimously the following:

RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEASE FOR

LAWFUL GAMBLING ACTIVITY AND PREMISES PERMIT APPLICATION

RESOLUTION NO. 21-09-02

WHEREAS; the Northwest Angle Edge Riders has submitted a lease for lawful gambling activity and a premise permit application for Minnesota Lawful Gambling to be conducted at the following establishments, which are located in Lake of the Woods County:

Sunset Lodge
3179 Oak Island, Oak Island, MN 56741

Sportsman’s Oak Island Lodge, Inc.

838 Oak Island, Oak Island, MN 56741

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners hereby approves said application for submission to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board.

Northerly Park

Update

Joe Laurin from the Northwest Angle Edge Riders provided an update on the Northerly Park and a recent visit from the Greater Minnesota Parks and Trails Commission.

Resolution

The following resolution was offered by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and unanimously carried the following:

Support for the Northwest Angle Edge Riders
Grant Request from
Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission 

2021-09-03

WHEREAS; Northwest Angle Edge Riders met with Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners on September 14, 2021 to discuss grant opportunities to create a Park at Angle Inlet/Northwest Angle;

WHEREAS; The park plans for Northerly Park in Lake of the Woods County is significant and exciting for it would be the most northern park in the lower 48; 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT; the Lake of the Woods County Commissioners supports the Northwest Angle Edge Riders and their grant request with the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission.  Lake of the Woods County does not have an existing park in Angle Inlet/Northwest Angle.  

PUBLIC WORKS

Highway
Approve Final SAP 039-633-003

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried unanimously to approve the final payment for SAP 039-633-003 for Wheelers Point Sewer District, Baudette, MN in the total amount of $877,035.44 and hereby authorize final payment of $23,314.89.

Designate CRRSAA Funds

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried unanimously to designate the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act funds of $134,923 to County Road Construction use by 2024.

Add to Agenda:
Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried unanimously to add Solid Waste/Garage Door Project to the Agenda under Public Works.

Solid Waste

Garage Door Project
Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Ed Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve replacement of three garage doors with Borgen Construction, quoted at $38,000.

SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

MOA Rainy-Rapid One Watershed, One Plan
Motion
Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Ed Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve the Memorandum of Agreement for the Rainy-Rapid One Watershed, One Plan with Lake of the Woods Soil and Water Conservation District and for Chair Joe Grund to sign the same.

Motion
Motion was made by Commissioner Buck Nordlof, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to appoint Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and Commissioner Ed Arnesen to the Rainy-Rapid One Watershed, One Plan Committee.

LAND AND WATER PLANNING
Consideration of Zone Change #21-01ZCV by Crown Holdings, LLC
Land and Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund met with the Board and presented a Consideration of Zone Change #21-01ZCV by Crown Holdings, LLCThe SW¼NW¼, Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.36.23.000. Applicant is requesting a zone change from a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District to a Residential (R1) Zoning District for the purposes of a subdivision and development of lots.  Stromlund reviewed the Findings of Fact with the Board.

Motion
Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to approve the Consideration of Zone Change #21-01ZCV by Crown Holdings, LLC from a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District to a Residential (R1) Zoning District for the purposes of a subdivision and development of lots.

Lake of the Woods County Rezoning

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant:Crown Holdings, LLCDate:September 14, 2021
Location/Legal Description:SW¼NW¼ section 36, T. 162N, R. 32W
Current Zoning Classification:Rural Residential (R2)Proposed:Residential (R1)
Parcel Number(s):19.36.23.000Application Number:21-01ZC

The County Board of Commissioners shall consider all facts from all sources prior to rendering a decision relating to a proposed zone change. Its judgment shall be based upon, but not limited to the following factors as applicable.

  1. Is the zone change consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan?

X Yes ___No

Comments:Changing from R2 to R1 for platting is consistent with the “Growth Corridor”.
  1. Are the existing surrounding land uses consistent with the proposed zoning classification?

X Yes ___No

Comments:There is a mixture of Commercial-Recreation, Rural Residential, and Residential zoning
districts in the immediate vicinity of the property.
  1. Will the zone change alter the characteristics of the neighborhood?

___Yes X No

Comments:There is already a mixture of Commercial-Recreation, Rural Residential, and 
Residential zoning districts in the immediate vicinity of the property.
  1. Is there a potential for public health, safety or traffic generation impacts based on the proposed zone change and how will they be addressed?

X Yes ___No

Comments:The property is currently served by Highway 172 on the west, 27th Street NW on the 
north, and a proposed road to service the proposed lots. Adequate soils exist for septic systems, except in the extreme south end of the property.
  1. What additional public services would be necessitated and would existing utilities be sufficient to accommodate the proposal?

X Yes ___No

Comments:No additional public services are needed. There are existing utilities adjacent to property 
and easements for said utilities will be provided.
  1. Will the zone change impede the normal or orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zoning district?

___Yes X No

Comments:There will be change.
  1. Has there been a change in the development in the general area of the property in questions?

X Yes ___No

Comments:Increased need for residential dwellings. Also, there has been an increase in long-term 
vacation rentals.
  1. Will the zone change have a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood?

_Yes X No

Comments:
Conditions: 

The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners hereby APPROVES the application for a zone change WITHOUT special conditions.

_____________________________________ September 14, 2021

Joe Grund, Chair, County Board of Commissioners

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-11CU by Paul Haugo
Land and Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund met with the Board and presented a Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-11CU by Paul Haugo:  Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Wildwood North Subdivision, Section Nine (9), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID#: 18.50.01.090 and 18.50.01.100. Applicant is requesting an After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) yards outside of the shore impact zone of Zippel Bay of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a general development lake.  Stromlund reviewed the Findings of Fact with the Board and informed the Board that the Planning Commission recommends approval with conditions.  The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

  1. The applicant must apply for a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) after-the-fact public waters permit to authorize riprap installed below the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of Zippel Bay, or, remove and construct the riprap project to meet the no-permit criteria from the DNR and restore vegetation in its place.
  2. The applicant must remove the crushed granite walking path from the top of the riprap and install a ten (10) foot wide native plant buffer in its place.
  1. The applicant must restore vegetation coverage within the shore impact zone of Lots 9-10, Block 1, Wildwood North subdivision.
  1. The applicant must identify the amount of impervious surface installed on Lots 9-10, Block 1, Wildwood North subdivision and remove impervious surface coverage, if necessary, not to exceed 25% of the total lot area.
  1. The activities outlined in the above conditions must be completed prior to July 31, 2022.

Motion
Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to approve the Conditional Use Permit #21-11CU by Paul Haugo with the following conditions:

  1. The applicant must apply for a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) after-the-fact public waters permit to authorize riprap installed below the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of Zippel Bay, or, remove and construct the riprap project to meet the no-permit criteria from the DNR and restore vegetation in its place.
  2. The applicant must remove the crushed granite walking path from the top of the riprap and install a ten (10) foot wide native plant buffer in its place.
  1. The applicant must restore vegetation coverage within the shore impact zone of Lots 9-10, Block 1, Wildwood North subdivision.
  1. The applicant must identify the amount of impervious surface installed on Lots 9-10, Block 1, Wildwood North subdivision and remove impervious surface coverage, if necessary, not to exceed 25% of the total lot area.
  1. The activities outlined in the above conditions must be completed prior to July 31, 2022.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant:  Paul Haugo Date:  September 14, 2021 

Location/Legal Description:  Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Wildwood North Subdivision, Section 9, T. 162N, R. 33W

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) yards outside of the shore impact zone of Zippel Bay of Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods is a general development lake.

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

Why or why not? Shoreline protection.

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

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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? Shoreline protection.

  1. 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? Removed trees and changed slope to shore.

  1. 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? Shoreline

  1. 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 (X)  N/A (  )

Why or why not? To be based on DNR findings.

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not? Shoreline protection.

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

  1. Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance?         YES (  )  NO (X)  N/A (  )

Why or why not? Removed vegetative screening.

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

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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. The applicant must apply for a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) after-the-fact public waters permit to authorize riprap installed below the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of Zippel Bay, or, remove and construct the riprap project to meet the no-permit criteria from the DNR and restore vegetation in its place.
  1. The applicant must remove the crushed granite walking path from the top of the riprap and install a ten (10) foot wide native plant buffer in its place.
  1. The applicant must restore vegetation coverage within the shore impact zone of Lots 9-10, Block 1, Wildwood North subdivision.
  1. The applicant must identify the amount of impervious surface installed on Lots 9-10, Block 1, Wildwood North subdivision and remove impervious surface coverage, if necessary, not to exceed 25% of the total lot area.
  1. The activities outlined in the above conditions must be completed prior to July 31, 2022.

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

_______________ _____________________________________

Date Joseph Grund,  Chair, County Board
This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-12CU by Hapka Holdings, LLC
Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-12CU by Hapka Holdings, LLC: Government Lot One (1) less deeded the north six hundred sixty feet (660’) of Government Lot Two (2) less the south four hundred fifty feet (450’) of Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 24.07.22.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Rainy River. Rainy River is an agricultural river segment. Stromlund reviewed the Findings of Fact with the Board and informed the Board that the Planning Commission recommends approval with conditions.  The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

  1. Follow DNR construction criteria for private boat ramps.
  2. Proper erosion control must be implemented and remain until disturbed soil is fully vegetated.
  3. The private boat ramp is limited to the area identified in the application.

Motion
Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Ed Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve the Conditional Use Permit #21-12CU by Hapka Holdings, LLC, with the following conditions:

  1. Follow DNR construction criteria for private boat ramps.
  2. Proper erosion control must be implemented and remain until disturbed soil is fully vegetated.
  3. The private boat ramp is limited to the area identified in the application.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant:  Hapka Holdings, LLC Date:  September 14, 2021

Location/Legal Description:  Gov’t Lot 1, Section 7, T. 161N, R. 31W

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Rainy River. Rainy River is an agricultural river segment.

  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? River access/recreational.

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? To follow DNR specs.

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

Why or why not? Will not or little change.

  1. 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? Shoreland river access.  

  1. 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? To follow DNR specs.

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? Recreational area/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? Private launch site.

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? No change.

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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 (  )

Why or why not? Private launch.

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 DNR construction criteria for private boat ramps.
  2. Proper erosion control must be implemented and remain until disturbed soil is fully vegetated.
  3. The private boat ramp is limited to the area identified in the application.

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

_______________ _____________________________________

Date Joseph Grund Chair, County Board

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

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-13CU by Nels Holte
Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-13CU by Nels Holte: Government Lot Three (3), Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-two North (162), Range Thirty-two West (32) with Parcel ID# 19.17.24.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of a riprap project. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.  Stromlund reviewed the Findings of Fact with the Board and informed the Board that the Planning Commission recommends approval with conditions.  The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

  1. The applicant must follow the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources requirements for installation of riprap and if applicable, obtain the necessary permits from this agency.

Motion
Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried unanimously to approve the Conditional Use Permit #21-13CU by Nels Holte, with the following conditions:

  1. The applicant must follow the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources requirements for installation of riprap and if applicable, obtain the necessary permits from this agency.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant:  Nels Holte Date:  September 14, 2021

Location/Legal Description:  Gov’t Lot 3, Section 17, T. 162N, R. 32W

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of a riprap project. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

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

Why or why not? Shoreline stabilization.

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

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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? Shoreline stabilization.

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

Why or why not? Will not.

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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? DNR requirements. 

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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.

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

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

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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? ______________________________________________________

  1. 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. The applicant must follow the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources requirements for installation of riprap and if applicable, obtain the necessary permits from this agency.

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

_______________ _____________________________________

Date Joseph Grund, Chair, County Board

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

RECESS
With no further business before the Board, Chair Joe Grund called the meeting to recess at 10:13 a.m.

Attest: September 28, 2021

_________________________________ _________________________________

Auditor-Treasurer, Lorene Hanson Chair of the Board, Joe Grund