Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Veterinary Clinic Ordinance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sherburne County planners recommend adding veterinary clinics as interim use after tight 4–3 vote

Sherburne County Planning Advisory Commission · May 21, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning Advisory Commission voted 4–3 on May 21 to recommend a county ordinance amendment that would list small‑ and large‑animal veterinary clinics as interim uses with performance standards, sending the proposal to the County Board on June 23, 2026.

The Sherburne County Planning Advisory Commission on May 21 voted 4–3 to recommend a change to the county zoning ordinance that would add veterinary clinics as an interim use, establishing separate standards for small‑animal and large‑animal operations.

Marc Schneider, the county’s Assistant Zoning Administrator, told commissioners the draft ordinance—revised by zoning staff after earlier feedback—creates two clinic types. Small‑animal clinics and same‑day haul‑in large‑animal clinics would be allowed on 5‑acre parcels in many rural districts; large‑animal clinics that keep animals overnight would require a minimum of 10 acres and additional safeguards. The draft also proposes performance rules including limits on employees in rural districts, carcass management, and a proposed 200‑foot setback for outdoor containment.

Ian McCoy, an attorney representing applicant Dr. Ashley Anderson Nokk of Triple A Equine, urged approval, saying the ordinance is intended to provide a consistent permitting framework "about how Sherburne County is going to handle Veterinary Care permits going forward," not to address any single permit. Local horse owners and clients described delays and scarcity of large‑animal veterinary services and urged commissioners to approve the ordinance so small, appointment‑based practices can operate locally.

Opponents raised concerns about public‑health protections and neighborhood impacts. Anne Felber, a nearby resident, said the draft lacks adequate screening and neighbor protections and argued higher setbacks and larger acreages are needed for large‑animal care. She also flagged an ‘‘appearance of bias’’ because the original proposal was drafted by a resident on a 5‑acre parcel who could benefit from reduced requirements.

After discussion and staff answers about how applications would be tailored to proposed operations, Commissioner Bruce Aubol moved to accept the ordinance as written; Lila Spencer seconded. The roll call showed Spencer, Steve Demeules, Terrance Vander Eyk and Aubol in favor; Dalton Keiderling, Francine Larson and Kathi Sims‑Kosloski opposed. The commission’s recommendation goes to the County Board for final action on June 23, 2026.

If adopted by the board, the amendment would create a permit pathway to allow veterinary care operations under interim use permits and spell out application requirements and location‑specific performance standards to guide future IUP reviews.

Next step: the County Board will review the Planning Commission recommendation and the public record at its June 23 meeting.