Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Winona County Board of Adjustment approves variances to allow family to convert existing building into residence
Summary
The Board approved two variances for docket BOA11202501 — relief from subdivision standards and a prime-soils variance — allowing a ~2.5-acre split from a 101-acre parcel and conversion of part of an existing 50×80 structure to a residence; staff recommended approval and the decision may be appealed to district court within 30 days.
The Winona County Board of Adjustment voted to approve two variances for docket BOA11202501, allowing a roughly 2.5-acre split from a 101-acre parcel and the conversion of part of an existing building into a residence.
Planning staff (Olivia) told the board the parcel sits on the Richmond/New Hartford border in Richmond Township and that prime soils cover most of the parent 101-acre parcel. Olivia said the proposal would convert part of an existing structure into a residence for family members, avoid additional disturbance of cropland, require a new septic system on the new parcel and shared well access, and that the analysis and draft findings in the staff report "do support granting the variance." Olivia also noted the planning commission would consider the required conditional-use permit that night.
The petitioners identified themselves for the record. Todd Huff (27962 Huff Lane, Dakota) and his wife, Lisa, said the parcel is family-owned and that the parcel being split would be parceled to their daughter and son-in-law to return near family. Todd Huff said the structure measures about 50 by 80 feet and that the family hopes to convert roughly 2,500 square feet of interior space for residential use while keeping tillable cropland in production. The petitioners said the township (Richmond Township) reviewed the request on Aug. 12 and indicated support as presented.
Board members asked about the subdivision rules, including how road frontage and past splits affect whether the current proposal triggers subdivision standards. Staff explained that when a parent parcel has had multiple small splits (the county looks back to 1970), the third split that does not meet frontage or minimum-lot-size rules triggers the subdivision standards; because the current split would effectively be the fourth split of the parent parcel, relief from subdivision standards is required. Staff also explained that because the conversion uses an existing structure, there is no proposed change to the building footprint and no additional public hearings are required for interior conversion beyond the conditional-use and variance actions.
After public testimony and questioning, a motion by Ed, seconded by Lynn, to approve both variances with the attached conditions in the staff report passed by voice vote; the chair said the motion was approved unanimously. The chair read the appeal instructions: any aggrieved person or agency may appeal the board’s decision to the district court within 30 days; the planning department is not responsible for filing an appeal.
The meeting adjourned following the vote.
Notes: The transcript contains two different spellings for the petitioners/owner (Hoff and Huff). The petitioners on the record provided their name and address as Todd and Lisa Huff (27962 Huff Lane); the staff report initially listed Arnold Hoff as owner and Todd and Lisa Hoff as petitioners. The board’s decision and the appeal window were announced at the meeting.
