Wabasha County commissioners reclassify 80-acre parcel to A3 after public debate

Wabasha County commissioners voted to place parcel R16.00122.00 entirely in the Agricultural Low Density District (A3), reversing a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation that the parcel be designated Agricultural Protection District (A1).

The issue arose after the county's zoning administrator identified that the 80-acre parcel straddled two primary zoning districts, which is not permitted under chapter 3.01 of the Wabasha County zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission had held a public hearing on Feb. 24, 2025, and recommended A1 by a 5–0 vote to correct what it described as an earlier mapping error.

Why it matters: The classification determines permitted uses and future subdivision potential. Neighbors urged preservation of farmland and limited density; the property owner and his attorney said reclassification to A3 better fit surrounding parcels and existing uses and would avoid financial harm to the owner.

Planning and zoning staff told the board that the parcel was split between the Agricultural Protection District (A1) and the Agricultural Low Density District (A3) and that article 17, section 1, subdivision 1 of the county zoning ordinance authorizes the board to amend the zoning map to correct these errors. The Planning Commission recommended making the parcel all A1.

Attorney Richard Lau, representing the property owner, said the owner bought the site understanding it was partly A1 and partly A3 and did not request a change. Lau said his client paid $300,000 for the parcel and has “currently spent more than $80,000 in pulling permits in reliance that part of the property was A3,” including roughly $40,000 on bridge and wetland permits, and that a reclassification to A1 would damage his client’s ability to develop the portion currently treated as A3.

Resident Charlene Klenert urged the board to adopt A1, citing the zoning ordinance’s stated purpose to “preserve agricultural land and to limit incompatible land uses” and raising concerns about potential increased recreational or residential use if the parcel’s density changed. She said A1 would preserve the parcel’s integrity and noted the parcel already abuts A1 zoning at its northern end.

Resident Ken Jacob told commissioners he supported classifying the parcel as A1 and noted the Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation. Commissioners discussed the record, public testimony and site constraints. One commissioner said much of the public testimony was based on “what ifs” about possible future uses and that the current request was clerical—intended to correct a mapping error.

After discussion, a motion was made to change the parcel’s classification to all A3. The board conducted a roll-call vote; Commissioner Springer voted no and four other commissioners voted yes. The motion carried and the board directed staff to identify other parcels with dual zoning for future correction.

The board’s action changes the official zoning map for parcel R16.00122.00. Commissioners noted the county’s earlier mapping and GIS limitations dating back to the 2001 zoning ordinance overlay and said similar corrections could come forward as they are identified.