The McLeod County Board of Commissioners voted to deny a conditional‑use permit for an unnamed applicant after the county Planning Commission recommended denial on Feb. 13, 2025.

County planning staff recommended denial based on the Planning Commission’s findings of fact: the request “is not in harmony with the general purpose of the area,” intensified activity would “lead to direct conflict with neighbors,” and a home‑occupation designation is not allowed because “there is no dwelling on this property.” The commission reviewed applicable county standards in Section 17 of the zoning ordinance and performance standards in Section 16, and cited state statute 394.301 as the statutory authority that permits the county to impose conditions when issuing conditional‑use permits.

Planning and zoning staff member Mark explained the specific review criteria the Planning Commission applied, including impacts on neighboring property enjoyment, property values, orderly development, utilities and access, parking, and measures to prevent nuisances such as odor, dust and noise. Mark told the board the closest neighboring house is at the parcel described in the record as “17969200 and Fortieth Street, Hutchinson, Minnesota,” and that the application parcel sits roughly 265 feet from that residence.

During discussion, a commissioner asked whether the applicant could pursue the same business on another parcel. Planning staff replied that the applicant may research other parcels that do not abut residences; if circumstances change — for example, if the applicant acquired the neighboring parcel with a dwelling — the application would materially change and the applicant could reapply.

The applicant addressed the board, saying he and others had talked with neighbors following the Planning Commission hearing and that “the adjoining property is actually at this point willing to sell us their property with the home on it, and we're just waiting on an appraisal to work through that process. I feel like we've gone through all the steps to be able to make all the surrounding properties happy, and we're more than willing to compromise with any of them on the details of the planning to make sure that it's not an eyesore or any of their concerns get addressed through the planning process.” The applicant requested the board grant the permit now with the option to revoke later; commissioners responded that acquisition of the neighboring dwelling would change the application and likely require a new application.

After further questions from several commissioners about the scale of the proposed accessory building, the role of the Planning Commission’s findings and the need to respect that body’s review, a commissioner moved to deny the permit; the motion was seconded (second by Commissioner Krueger) and carried. The board did not provide a roll‑call vote count in the record.

Board members and staff repeatedly noted the applicant’s right to reapply if the property circumstances change and emphasized that the denial reflected the application as presented to the county for the specific parcel under review.

The denial preserves the Planning Commission’s findings, and staff advised that a materially different application (for example, including a dwelling on the parcel) should be brought back through the normal application process.