Wabasha County commissioners reclassify 80-acre parcel to higher-density agricultural zone after public hearing

Wabasha County commissioners voted to reclassify Parcel R16.00122.00 — an approximately 80-acre property owned by Meadowview Properties — to the Agricultural Low Density (A3) zoning district, after a public hearing and board discussion.

The change followed testimony at a county meeting in which the planning and zoning administrator said the parcel had been incorrectly split between Agricultural Protection (A1) and Agricultural Low Density (A3) and that the planning commission had unanimously recommended placing the parcel entirely in A1. The administrator cited chapter 3.01 and article 17, section 1 of the Wabasha County zoning ordinance as the authority to correct split-designation errors.

Why it matters: The reclassification changes the parcel's primary zoning and may affect future development rights on the land. Neighbors and the property owner's attorney urged different outcomes during public comment, and the county board's decision differed from the planning commission's recommendation.

Attorney Richard Lau, representing the property owner, told the board the owner ‘‘purchased the property understanding that it was both A1 and A3’’ and said the owner had ‘‘spent more than $80,000 in pulling permits in reliance that part of the property was A3.’’ Lau said the owner bought the parcel for $300,000 and warned the owner could be ‘‘damaged’’ financially if development rights were limited by reclassification.

Several West Albany Township residents urged the board to adopt the planning commission's recommendation to classify the parcel A1, citing the ordinance's stated intent to preserve agricultural land and limit incompatible uses. Charlene Clennard said an A1 designation would ‘‘keep the integrity of the plot’’ and prevent higher-density uses such as multiple home lots or campgrounds. Ken Jacob and other speakers said the parcel is surrounded largely by A3 land and expressed differing views about likely future uses.

Board discussion cited both procedural and substantive points. One commissioner noted that the split zoning appeared to be a legacy issue caused by the 2001 ordinance overlay on older county parcel maps and described the change process as a clerical correction mechanism provided in the ordinance. Other commissioners said public concern largely stemmed from speculation about hypothetical future uses and stressed that any subdivision or replatting would require separate approvals.

A motion to reclassify the parcel to A3 was made and seconded (mover and seconder not specified in the meeting record). The board conducted a roll-call vote: Commissioner Springer voted no; the remaining four commissioners voted yes. The tally was 4 yes, 1 no; the motion carried.

The board chair noted additional parcels with multiple zoning designations exist countywide and said those would be corrected as they come forward.

Ending: The classification change takes effect with the county's zoning records update. The planning commission's prior recommendation and the differing public comments were entered into the official record.