Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McLeod County board approves multiple conditional-use permits, mining amendment and sketch plan
Summary
The county board unanimously approved a sketch plan, an amendment to a conditional-use permit for a gravel pit reclamation plan, and several accessory-building conditional-use permits with conditions including administrative penalties and limits on commercial use.
McLeod County commissioners on June 17 approved a series of land-use items including a one-lot sketch plan, an amendment to a gravel-mining conditional-use permit to change reclamation to an open pond, and multiple conditional-use permits for accessory structures with conditions on use and penalties for after-the-fact construction.
Under environmental services staff presentations, the board approved sketch plan 25‑02 requested by Christopher Schultz for a one-lot sketch plan to establish building eligibility on 5.76 acres north of Lester Prairie. Staff said the property—an old gravel pit restored by the family—had township and planning commission recommendations for approval.
The board also approved an amendment to conditional-use permit 25‑07 at the request of Joe White of B & H Aggregate for property owned by William and Mary Parpart. The permit had originally approved a five‑year gravel pit operation for the Highway 212 project and a reclamation plan returning the land to farming. The homeowners requested a change to leave a restored open pond on the west side of Boone Road instead of returning the site to farmland. According to staff, Helen Township and the McLeod County Planning Commission recommended the amendment; the planning commission imposed one condition requiring reclamation to remain 60 feet from the center of Boone Road with a 4:1 side slope extending 10 feet below the water line.
Several accessory‑structure conditional‑use permits also were approved with conditions. The board approved:
- Conditional‑use permit 25‑10 for Brian Alls to add a 24-by-30-foot accessory addition to an existing 24-by-30 building on a 2.5‑acre R‑1 zoned parcel, with planning commission approval and a condition that the addition be for personal use only and that any future expansion or change of use would require a new permit.
- Conditional‑use permit 25‑11 for Corey Pink to add a 30-by-50-foot accessory building (to total 2,400 square feet) on a 5.44‑acre parcel for personal use only. Staff said the applicant intends the space as a sport court for his child; the Haston Valley Township and the planning commission recommended approval with a personal‑use condition.
- Conditional‑use permit 25‑12 for Alan Rudonce to construct an L‑shaped accessory building larger than 2,400 square feet to support a home‑occupation lawn service and landscaping business on a 22.11‑acre agricultural parcel. The planning commission recommended approval with conditions: the parcel must not be rezoned if split and sold without the owner’s dwelling; hours restricted to 5:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday–Friday; any increase to more than 10 nonresident employees would require a new permit; and roof water from the accessory structure must be routed to the existing pond. Staff said the applicant agreed to reroute roof water on site.
- Conditional‑use permit 25‑14 for Glenn and Jackie Schuler to allow a 40-by-72-foot accessory building on a 9.75‑acre rural residential site. Staff said the applicants built a larger structure before the conditional‑use permit was approved; the planning advisory commission recommended approval with conditions including an administrative penalty of $500 under the McLeod County zoning ordinance and a requirement that the structure be used for personal use only.
Commissioner Krueger commented he had received calls about one application but said the permits spelled out permitted uses and conditions and that "the compromise was great" after stakeholders reviewed permit terms. Votes on each item carried after the planning staff presentations.
Why it matters: The board’s actions approve both new development eligibility and operational changes for mineral extraction while imposing conditions intended to protect road setbacks, limit commercial impacts on residential parcels and set penalties and operational limits for after‑the‑fact construction.
The meeting record did not include any votes against the permits; conditions and operational limits were attached where planning staff and townships had recommended them.
