Board approves most Leenstra variances but denies unpermitted feedlot structure

ST. CLOUD, Minn. — The Stearns County Board of Adjustment on Feb. 13 voted to allow several previously permitted structures at 24011 County Road 23 to remain as constructed but denied an after‑the‑fact variance for a separate feedlot building that was built without permits and sits inside the road right‑of‑way.

Staff told the board the application by Andy and Margo Leenstra asked to "leave as constructed" a single‑family dwelling originally permitted in 2002, an accessory agricultural structure permitted in 2015 and a permitted feedlot structure, all of which fall short of the county road centerline setback requirements. The staff report also described a separate, unpermitted 14‑by‑37 partial‑confinement feedlot structure (labeled number 6 on staff maps) built without a permit that is the focus of the after‑the‑fact variance request.

The hearing drew remote testimony from applicant Andy Leenstra, who told the board the new structure was built to shelter animals and to replace unsafe existing buildings. "I had a hay shelter that was close to the river, and I needed a better riding arena because I'm 80 years old," Leenstra said. "I should have known better. I did not mean to violate." Environmental staff told the board the site was inspected in October and November 2024 and "the site was deemed noncompliant on December 5, 2024" with construction and permitting requirements under the county ordinance.

Why it matters: The decision separates legacy, permitted work from a recent unpermitted construction. The county enforces road centerline and right‑of‑way setbacks for safety and maintenance; leaving already‑permitted structures in place preserves housing and existing agricultural operations, while denying the after‑the‑fact request signals the county will not retroactively approve unpermitted encroachments in the road right‑of‑way.

Board action and findings

- The board voted to grant the variance to "leave as permitted and constructed" the single‑family dwelling (originally permitted in 2002) and the accessory feedlot structures that had been permitted earlier. Board members answered the required finding questions in the affirmative and the motion carried with five yes votes on those items.

- A separate motion to deny the after‑the‑fact variance for the 14‑by‑37 unpermitted partial‑confinement feedlot structure (structure No. 6 on staff maps) carried on a 3–2 vote. The denied request specifically sought permission to leave the unpermitted structure in place despite its location within the county's road right‑of‑way.

What the staff record says

Staff reported the parcel is about 23.3 acres and historically registered for fewer than 10 animal units; the feedlot registration listed horses as the animal type and showed a 6‑animal‑unit registration in place as of May 20, 2022. Staff noted an earlier miscommunication: the owners were told a 100‑foot centerline setback applied, but the actual minimum road centerline setback is tied to the recorded right‑of‑way (the staff report notes a platted 60‑foot right‑of‑way on this section of County Road 23). Staff recommended either granting variances for the structures that had been permitted and requiring the unpermitted structure to be moved, or denying the after‑the‑fact request.

Public and board discussion

Board members visited the site irregularly; several members said they had not been on site prior to the hearing. Members asked the applicant why the new structure had been built without a permit; Leenstra said he constructed it himself and had not realized a permit was required. The board considered the after‑the‑fact factors (good faith, substantial investment, completed construction, presence of similar structures nearby, and whether county benefits are outweighed by owner burden) when answering findings for the unpermitted structure.

Next steps and notes

Staff told the applicants the department will contact them during business hours to discuss compliance options and next steps. The decision to deny the after‑the‑fact variance means the county will require removal or relocation of the unpermitted structure unless the property owner obtains a successful appeal or otherwise achieves compliance.

Ending: The applicants remained on the call after the vote; the chair invited them to follow up with staff for detailed instructions on compliance and timelines.