Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Access Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goodhue County approves access‑driveway variance for Boettcher farm after public hearing
Summary
The county board granted a variance to allow a second driveway at 23830 County 42 Boulevard for Joshua Boettcher, who said the additional access will allow trucks to pull off the road for livestock and feed deliveries. County staff cited spacing standards and safety considerations during deliberations.
The Goodhue County Board of Commissioners approved a variance request on Sept. 9 to allow a second access drive at 23830 County 42 Boulevard in Zumbrota Township for landowner Joshua Boettcher.
County public‑works staff had denied an access permit on the grounds that the proposed driveway did not meet the county's access‑spacing standards, which were built from statewide design guidance. Staff told the board the policy strives for a 725‑foot decision‑sight distance at 55 mph (minimum 550 feet in some circumstances). Boettcher told the board his operation — a permitted livestock feedlot with about 350 meat goats and some cattle — regularly receives deliveries with long semitrailers; he said the existing driveway forces some unloading on the county road and that a second driveway would allow trucks to get off the traveled way.
During the public hearing Boettcher said he and his family have farmed the property for about 140 years and that constraints of septic, buildings and existing well/power locations limit options for relocating or widening the existing access. He said staff had, informally, indicated a proposed location would be acceptable but that formal denial was ultimately issued because the spacing requirement was not met.
County staff and several commissioners discussed alternatives, including: (1) shifting or consolidating access points on the parcel's corners; (2) seeking a shared access with adjacent parcels; or (3) widening and improving the existing access. Staff noted there are other driveways across the county that predate current standards and that the board must balance property access rights with traffic‑safety engineering.
After discussion a commissioner moved to approve the variance as proposed; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. A commissioner who seconded the motion said safety concerns about truck activity on the roadway contributed to support for the variance, while public‑works staff reiterated that loading/unloading on the county highway remains the responsibility of the operator and that spacing standards exist to preserve stopping‑ and decision‑sight distances on higher‑speed roads.
The board recorded the variance approval in its minutes and returned the item to staff for any required permitting steps. The staff report attached to the agenda had documented the county ordinance language authorizing variances and listing six required findings (exceptional circumstances, deprivation of rights, not applicant‑caused, minimum necessary relief, no material detriment, economic hardship not sole basis).
