Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, township and commissioners spar over gated road at Detroit Lakes; board punts to further review
Summary
Residents and Detroit Township officials told the Becker County Board a gate erected circa 1993 is illegally blocking long‑used township roadway T‑579; the county cited a township legal opinion and MPCA landfill fencing requirements and agreed to seek fencing estimates and further review before a final action.
A heated, multi‑hour exchange focused on a gated access road near Detroit Lakes (referred to as the township road, T‑579). Residents and township representatives urged the board to remove a gate they say the county illegally installed in 1993, saying the gate prevents access to property, impedes logging and development and has led to legal bills and transactional delays. One resident called the situation “ridiculous,” saying the gate blocks access for pickups and heavy vehicles.
The township and landowners argued the road has been used for decades and remains publicly posted; they asked the board to remove both north and south gates and fence the landfill perimeter so access is open while the site is secured for environmental compliance. Speaker 12 (a Detroit Lakes resident) said the gate was placed “across the public roadway” and that the board’s earlier motion had directed its removal; township representatives supplied historical references and described local maintenance and school‑bus use.
Commissioners cautioned that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements tied to the landfill complicate taking the gate down immediately; one commissioner said the county sought a township attorney opinion (cited in the meeting) and that the county must understand MPCA fencing rules before removing a gate that was originally installed to meet landfill control conditions. Other commissioners strongly disagreed with the township attorney’s view and urged immediate action: “If we did the wrong thing by gating it, we need to take the gate down,” one commissioner said.
The board did not order immediate removal. Instead it agreed to gather cost estimates for required fencing, seek additional legal and regulatory clarification (including MPCA requirements), and return the issue to the board agenda for further action within about 30 days. Some township representatives warned they would take their own remedies if the county did not act. The board scheduled the issue for follow‑up and agreed staff would report back with firm recommendations.
