Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Farm Dwelling Variance Prime Soils topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance for new dwelling on class‑2 prime soils for Tibur family farm; payment condition added
Summary
Winona County’s Board of Adjustment approved a variance allowing Ben and Elle Tibur to build a 56-by-42 dwelling on class‑2 soils after staff review and public comment. The board added a condition that the ordinance will not be recorded or become effective until the application fee has cleared.
The Winona County Board of Adjustment approved a variance on Oct. 12, 2025, permitting a new 56-by-42 dwelling with an attached garage on class‑2 prime soils within the Ag Resource Conservation (ARC) district for petitioners Ben and Elle Tibur. The board added an explicit condition that the county will not record the ordinance or permit work to proceed until the application fee has been paid and cleared.
County planning staff explained the request for the 5.16-acre building site on a larger 516‑acre ownership (the parcel set under review), noting that the county’s prime‑soil exemption applies only when less than 40% of the entire ownership is class 1–3 soils. Staff said the ownership is about 53% prime soils, which triggers the prime‑soils standard and the need for a variance under county code (referred to in staff materials as chapter 10.4 0.76).
Lou, county planning staff, described the site as bluff‑top property with slopes generally at 3–6% at the proposed building location. He also noted the driveway approaches 400 feet in length, which triggers section 9.72 road and turnaround requirements. Lou said staff evaluated alternate sites on the ownership and that the applicants chose the current location weighing farming operations and access.
Petitioner Ben Teber told the board the family farms the ownership across multiple parcels and that they selected the proposed site to avoid feedlot setbacks and to minimize impacts to productive land and daily operations. Teber said the proposed home location is intended to be out of the feedlot setback area and to reduce dust from the gravel road. He told the board that the house and related infrastructure likely would remove "between 2 to 3 acres" from active production.
During the hearing, board members debated language in the draft findings about economic and intergenerational considerations. Board member Kelsey moved to amend the draft findings to remove the phrase "in a location that will allow the next generation to continue farming." The amendment passed, and the board then voted to approve the variance with the amended findings and the additional condition requiring payment clearance before the ordinance becomes effective.
The board also heard a procedural issue: staff reported the application fee had not cleared at the start of the meeting. The petitioner said the bank had corrected the error and mailed a replacement check; the board placed the fee‑clearance condition in the approval to ensure the administrative file is complete before the variance takes effect.
Votes at a glance: Motion to approve variance for a new dwelling on class‑2 soils (mover: Ed; second: Kelsey) — approved with amended findings and a condition that the ordinance is not effective until the application fee clears.
