Silver Rapids project

Can the residents of Lake County rely on their own planning staff to ensure that major development meets the standards laid down by ordinance? That’s an open question in the wake of the revelation, reported in the Timberjay last week, that DNR environmental officials have been expressing their doubts related to the Silver Rapids development for at least the past two months.
It’s been troubling to watch how this process has played out, and it suggests that politics got in the way of protecting the environment in Lake County. We were encouraged earlier this summer, when the county’s own environmental staff agreed that an environmental assessment worksheet, or EAW, would be useful in helping to enhance the understanding of the project and its implications on the environment for both county decision-makers as well as the public.
But when hundreds of area residents petitioned to ensure completion of an EAW, county staff backed away, rejecting the petition dismissively. Why the sudden change in position? It’s particularly odd given the fact that DNR officials were also advocating for an EAW, arguing that it was potentially mandatory.
What’s more, DNR area hydrologist Dani Braund, in an Aug. 9, 2024, email obtained by the Timberjay, raises numerous questions about the standards being used to review the project, and notes concerns that the proposal is not in compliance with the county’s own ordinance.
When asked whether the applicants had submitted an open space analysis based on the requirements within the shoreland impact zone, Lake County’s Tanya Feldkamp acknowledged they had not. On the issue of density, the DNR notes that the applicants submitted an analysis based on a state standard that doesn’t apply in Lake County, which had opted for a stricter standard back in the 1990s, apparently out of concern for maintaining the rural and wilderness-edge character of the county’s lake communities. In her response, Feldkamp said county staff was recommending “an amount of units between the county subdivision ordinance (16) and the 33 units allowed with shoreland commercial PUD requirements.” In the end, “in between” meant the maximum allowed under state rules, or 33.
Of course, none of these questions or answers was ever revealed to the public. If the DNR’s concerns were ever made known to members of the county planning commission, it didn’t happen in a public meeting. We’ve asked Lake County for clarification about when or if commission members were aware of the DNR’s position but given the likelihood of litigation over the county’s decision, they’re not talking.
Lake County officials need to clarify how they intend to move forward when it comes to Silver Rapids and other future development proposals. Do Lake County officials intend to enforce their ordinances, or apply them only when it suits their purposes? Here, it’s apparent that the county opted to apply a more lenient state standard that they had previously rejected as too permissive.
According to the DNR staff involved in the matter, the county had negotiated the terms of its ordinance when it was drafted back in the 1990s and the DNR ultimately agreed to an ordinance that was a mixed bag of provisions, some arguably stricter and some arguably looser. For Lake County to come back now and argue that it can rely on state rules where they’re more lenient, while ignoring their own ordinance, raises the question: Why does the county have an ordinance at all? Or even more critically, whose interests are county officials serving?
We certainly recognize that public reaction to most new development can be knee-jerk and overwhelmingly negative. But in the case of the Silver Rapids development, it’s easy to understand the public’s concern. Back in the 1990s, Lake County officials opted to enact an ordinance that allowed less density than might be allowed elsewhere in the state, a reflection of their understanding that expectations of residents were undoubtedly different here on the edge of the Boundary Waters. Residents have invested in homes and cabins in the area and, understandably, have an expectation that the county will enforce its ordinances as a way to protect their investments and ensure that development is consistent with the community standards that have been established. The reaction of the public to the Silver Rapids plan suggests there’s a major disconnect between what the public expects from Lake County and what today’s county officials appear willing to deliver.
If county officials won’t enforce their own ordinances, it should come as no surprise if residents, or the DNR, ask a court to insist that they do.