Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Envelope Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment upholds appeal, lets Mueller property modify building envelope without CUP
Summary
The board reversed Environmental Services’ determination that a conditional use permit was required to move a designated 2‑acre building envelope; the board found the department’s interpretation ambiguous and upheld the landowner’s appeal.
The Stearns County Board of Adjustment on a September evening upheld an appeal from Susan Muller (trustee of the Susan Muller Revocable Trust) and reversed Environmental Services’ June 16, 2025 administrative decision that a conditional use permit (CUP) was required to place a proposed accessory structure outside an established 2-acre building envelope.
The board found the county’s reading of Stearns County Land Use and Zoning Ordinance 4-39 — specifically the application of section 7.33.1 governing when a CUP is required for an expansion of a building envelope — to be not clearly applicable to the Mueller request. The board concluded the county’s interpretation was ambiguous and voted to uphold the appeal, allowing the property owner to pursue the accessory structure under the county’s by-right process rather than via a CUP requirement.
Attorney Julie Nagorski, representing the applicant, told the board the Muellers had worked with staff during design of the original envelope and that the current request is a modification of the envelope’s shape rather than an expansion of area: "What the Mullers want is permitted under the ordinance. What is not clear is why the County believes that it is not," she said. Susan Muller, the trustee, described the property as maintained and agricultural and said the proposed shed is needed for equipment storage; she told the board she did not intend to convert the structure to a commercial use.
Environmental Services staff, represented in discussion by Director Shelly Benson and technical staff, said the building envelope process exists to keep buildings concentrated and preserve agricultural land and that county practice since 2007 has been to require a CUP when a property seeks to do something outside of an established envelope. Benson told the board that a CUP, if granted, remains with the property and that the department applies the ordinance to require CUPs for changes.
Board members debated whether the applicants sought an "expansion" as defined in the ordinance or a "modification," and several members said the ordinance wording could be clearer. After discussion, George (board member) moved to uphold the appeal; Barry seconded. The board voted to uphold the appeal, reversing the department’s determination. During voting the board recorded one dissenting vote; Environmental Services will need to process the project consistent with the board’s ruling.
The board did not set new conditions; the ruling means the department’s June 16, 2025 decision is vacated for this parcel and the applicants may proceed under the applicable permitting pathway without first obtaining a CUP, subject to all other permit standards and agency reviews noted in the staff report.
