McLeod County approves family‑care second dwelling, denies accessory‑structure permit for hemp greenhouses

The McLeod County Board of Commissioners on March 11 approved a conditional use permit to allow a second family‑care dwelling on a 27.19‑acre parcel in the southwest quarter of Section 32, Burgenson Township, and denied a separate conditional use permit for an accessory commercial structure and multiple greenhouses proposed for hemp cultivation on an 18‑acre parcel in Hutchinson Township.

The first item approved, conditional use permit 25‑02, was requested by April Frankie to construct a modular second dwelling to provide family care for an aging relative. County planning staff told the board the Burgeon Township board and the McLeod County Planning Commission recommended approval with three conditions: the second dwelling must be a modular or manufactured dwelling; the second dwelling must be removed (or the original farm dwelling removed) when assistance is no longer needed; and an annual letter from a licensed physician must be submitted to McLeod County Environmental Services to continue the use. Commissioner Krueger moved to approve the permit; the motion was seconded; the board voted by voice and the motion carried.

The second item, conditional use permit 25‑01 requested by Bridget Bethy Pinder of Crystal, Minnesota, sought approval to construct an approximately 4,000‑square‑foot pole shed and place ten greenhouses to grow hemp, vegetables and flowers on an 18‑acre parcel that currently lacks a primary dwelling. Planning staff summarized the McLeod County Planning Commission findings that the application was not in harmony with the general purpose of the area, that intensification of the proposed activity could lead to direct conflict with neighbors, and that a home occupation would not be permitted because there is no dwelling on the property. Staff and the planning commission reviewed statutory authority under Minnesota Statute 394.301 and McLeod County zoning performance standards when making recommendations.

Board members discussed options available to the applicant, including acquiring an adjacent parcel with a dwelling, and multiple commissioners said the application as filed changed materially if the applicant were to acquire a neighboring property and refile. The applicant told the board she and neighbors had reached tentative agreements and that the adjoining property owner has expressed willingness to sell; she said she expected to be able to plant by April if licensing and property acquisition proceed. Planning staff advised that acquisition of a house would change the scope of the application and that the applicant could reapply. The board voted to deny conditional use permit 25‑01; the motion to deny was moved and seconded and carried by voice vote.

Why it matters: The approved family‑care permit allows an additional on‑site dwelling to meet a documented medical need under county rules and state statute; the denial of the accessory‑structure permit preserves existing land‑use limits for the agricultural zone and reflects the planning commission’s findings about neighborhood impact. Both decisions signal that applicants who wish to intensify commercial agricultural or greenhouse activity on parcels without dwellings may need to secure different sites or amend their applications to conform to county zoning standards.

Board actions at a glance:

- Conditional Use Permit 25‑02 (April Frankie): Motion to approve (mover: Commissioner Krueger; second: recorded). Outcome: approved (voice vote). Conditions: (1) modular/manufactured dwelling; (2) removal of second dwelling or existing farm dwelling once assistance no longer needed; (3) annual physician letter to Environmental Services required. Planning commission recommended approval.

- Conditional Use Permit 25‑01 (Bridget Bethy Pinder): Motion to deny (mover: recorded in transcript; second: Commissioner Krueger). Outcome: denied (voice vote). Planning commission recommended denial citing lack of harmony with area, potential conflicts with neighbors, and that a home occupation is not allowed without a dwelling.

Context and procedure: Planning staff identified the applicable county ordinance performance standards and cited Minnesota Statute 394.301 as the state authority permitting issuance of conditional use permits and allowing conditions to protect the public interest. Several commissioners emphasized that a materially different application (for example, after acquisition of an adjacent property that includes a dwelling) could be returned to the planning commission and board for reconsideration. The board did not adopt any new ordinance changes during the meeting.

The board recessed to its scheduled workshop after the meeting.