Walworth County’s Zoning Agency approved a request from the Lawrence Nedesheim Trust on June 19 to rezone and to issue a conditional-use permit to allow meat-processing and retail sales on a portion of the family’s property in Section 25, Sugar Creek Township.

Attorney Chad Pollard, representing the applicant, framed the proposal as a small meat market and processing facility intended to serve local producers and customers; he said the project is not a large industrial slaughterhouse. "This is not a slaughterhouse," Pollard told the agency, describing the plan as a locally focused meat market with on-site processing. Pollard also said the applicant had obtained a $1,380,000 U.S. Department of Agriculture grant and $25,000 in state funding and that the proposal would create about 20 jobs.

County staff summarized the request as a rezoning of about 3.79 acres from A1 Prime Agricultural Land to A4 Agricultural-Related Manufacturing, Warehousing and Marketing District in order to allow operations including meat packing, processing of animal fats, feed preparation, poultry dressing and retail sales. Staff’s report described the proposed building footprint and operational hours and noted the town’s recommended conditions on stormwater, maintenance agreements and survey/CSM requirements.

The City of Elkhorn presented a formal resolution urging denial. City Administrator Adam Swan said city councilors were concerned about noise, odors, heavy truck traffic on Voss Road and the project’s proximity to existing and planned residential subdivisions; he told the agency the city’s review suggested the proposal could undermine the viability of an attainable‑housing development proposed nearby. "The council urge[d] the county zoning agency to deny the CUP application and the rezoning application," Swan said on the record.

City staff also identified infrastructure concerns: Matt Lindstrom, Elkhorn director of public works, flagged the fact that Market Street and the stretch of Voss Road in front of the property are city-maintained and questioned whether the roads and future right-of-way would accommodate the anticipated truck movements. Allison Schwerk, Elkhorn zoning administrator, walked the agency through proposed mitigation measures the city requested if the county were to approve the use, including buffer zones, architectural design controls, fire access, lighting restrictions, limited processing hours, and traffic management.

A substantial and sustained public comment period followed, with many neighbors and residents speaking both in favor and in opposition. Supporters—largely neighbors, farmers and local small-business advocates—told the commission the facility would fill a local need for timely processing, preserve a multigenerational farm, and add a locally sourced retail outlet. Opponents, many of them living immediately across Voss Road in a residential subdivision, objected to proximity, truck traffic and wetland/stormwater impacts; several speakers said animals have escaped existing fields and said retention ponds and culverts on and near the site are already at or near capacity following recent heavy rain.

County staff and the applicant addressed technical issues in Q&A: staff noted the site would be served by private well and septic; the applicant said harvesting would mostly occur on weekdays subject to USDA inspector availability and that retail hours would be standard daytime hours. The applicant’s engineer and surveyor described proposed access, septic and stormwater features and noted the town of Sugar Creek had approved the plan at the town level (staff read that town approval into the record). The applicant asked the agency to remove condition #21 (a town request regarding a finalized CSM) and the agency discussion addressed that request.

After discussion, Zoning Agency member Dennis (Carnes) made a motion to approve the rezoning and conditional use consistent with county staff conditions but excluding condition 21; the motion was seconded and carried. The transcript records the motion carried on the county record. The minutes show substantial opposition from the City of Elkhorn and many nearby residents, and the county’s decision will appear on the county board agenda per the regular referral process.

Why it matters: the decision allows an agricultural property to add an on-site meat-processing and retail operation that the applicant says will serve local farmers and create jobs, while also crystallizing a long-standing planning conflict between the town of Sugar Creek and the City of Elkhorn over future land use at the city/town edge. The City of Elkhorn provided a formal resolution opposing the project and requested a series of mitigation measures should the county approve the use.

Implementation notes: the applicant must meet county and town conditions on stormwater, maintenance agreements, final survey and building permits; additional state or federal permits (USDA inspection and other food‑safety requirements) will be required before processing can commence.