Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Commission approves setback variance to allow large ag shop that will encroach onto adjacent parcel

June 26, 2025 | Clay County, Minnesota


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Commission approves setback variance to allow large ag shop that will encroach onto adjacent parcel
Members of the Planning Commission approved a variance to setback rules that will let an applicant construct an approximately 27,000‑square‑foot agricultural office, shop and storage building that will partially encroach across a common property line.

Planning staff explained the request was for parcel ID 23.0110.48 (and an adjacent parcel 23.0110.4801), located north of Dilworth near County Road 9. The applicant, identified in the record as Ryan Zimmerman, said the building would primarily sit on the larger parcel but encroach into the smaller parcel; both parcels are owned by Jerry Zimmerman. Staff told the commission the two lots cannot be combined under current code because each contains a residence, creating the practical difficulty that supports a variance review.

Staff reviewed the three statutory/practical‑difficulty factors used for variances (reasonable use, unique circumstances not created by the landowner, and no alteration of the essential character of the locality) and recommended findings. The commission found that the applicant had demonstrated the factors and that the variance would be the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty.

Planning staff proposed two conditions: (1) the property line be located by a licensed land surveyor, and (2) an encroachment easement describing the degree of encroachment be recorded for both properties. Commissioners discussed whether a formal survey was necessary; one commissioner suggested dropping the survey requirement but the motion ultimately approved the variance with both conditions intact.

A motion to approve the variance with Conditions 1 and 2 was made by Travis and seconded by Dennis; the commission voted in favor and carried the motion. Staff noted that septic/water capacity and any future temporary agricultural housing would require additional permits or hearings if pursued.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Minnesota articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI