The Lake County Planning Commission gave the reinvented Silver Rapids Lodge development proposal a preliminary stamp of approval at their meeting Monday evening.
The commission will send Silver Rapids’ proposal to the Lake County Board of Commissioners for a vote, recommending no need for more intensive environmental review.
Following a go-ahead from the board of commissioners, Silver Rapids may soon move forward with the permitting process. Developers stated in the EAW they hope to begin sitework this fall, pending project approvals.
Silver Rapids Lodge elected to undergo the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) process for their new plan.
An EAW outlines the project’s overall goals and design, allowing governing entities to determine whether further environmental review is required.
The decision followed public controversy sparked by the lodge’s first development plan, announced in 2024, which resulted in a petition including hundreds of signatures calling for a more rigorous analysis of the development’s potential impacts.
The new proposal scales down the resort’s initial plan from 49 fractional share cabins to 44, and 75 proposed moorings to 33. Silver Rapids no longer plans to install a tiki bar.
The revamped project description initially included 52 moorings instead of the 33 it now proposes. The reduction allowed Silver Rapids to fall in line with the county’s current shoreline density policy.
The Lake County Environmental Services Department received 51 public comments throughout the 30 day public review period.
Existing contamination from the resort’s two underground fuel tanks emerged as the most-cited concern among public comments, Lundgren said.
The MPCA has been involved in the issue since 2021, Lundgren said, when a consultant-produced report stated that multiple borings had revealed contamination extended no more than 10 feet around the tank.
Additional borings this year found that accumulated fuel concentrations in nearby groundwater were below health risk limits established by the Minnesota Department of Health.
Silver Rapids has elected to voluntarily remove the tanks as a proactive measure during the proposed development process.
“These are the types of times when the governing body should look to the project as the perfect opportunity to remediate something that’s taken place,” said board member Ken Guenther.
Concerns about the proposed development’s density were also well-represented in the slate of received comments.
Officials determined the project meets Lake County standards, which were updated in May 2026 to match the Minnesota state shoreline density ordinance.
Previously, county ordinances limited density to a value lower than the state’s standard. This disparity was cited in the DNR’s 2024 lawsuit against Silver Rapids, claiming Lake County had violated its own shoreline density restrictions in granting the project a CUP.
Public comments also cited increased boat traffic and possible disruptions to paddlers and the lake’s peaceful environment as key concerns.
Lundgren said the comments mainly related to the type of watercraft and the timing of boat traffic, which Lake County staff determined could be best addressed by operational conditions rather than further environmental review.
Lake County also received a comment from the 1854 Treaty Authority the morning of Monday’s meeting. The Authority encouraged the commission to consider the development’s possible impacts on wild rice.
“They indicate the presence of wild rice around the location of the site presented a reasonable probability that the area could have potential for cultural resources,” Lundgren said.
Data from the DNR’s Wild Rice Management Work Group included Farm Lake in its state wild rice inventory, but not White Iron. Silver Rapids developer Leisure Hotels and Resorts stated that the lake bottom drops steeply into the water on both lakes, meaning habitat would not be ideal for wild rice, which grows in shallow, gently-flowing water with a soft, organic bottom.
The White Iron section of the project is set to include the restoration of native shoreline plants and the removal of roads and concrete, which Silver Rapids representatives stated would bolster wild rice potential.
No aspect of the public comment record or review from environmental staff ultimately warranted EIS review.
“This development is over 100 years old now,” said planning commission member Rich Sve. “There have been some environmental impacts. We’ve talked about some of those right here today. All those are going to be addressed. Moving forward, they should see more improvements as long as all of these rules and regulations and agency reports are met.”
