Winona County Board of Adjustment approves variance allowing dwelling on prime soils near feedlot

The Winona County Board of Adjustment on Tuesday approved two after‑the‑fact variances that will allow an existing structure to remain as a dwelling on largely Class 3 prime soils and within the required feedlot setback in Saint Charles Township.

Planning staff Olivia told the board the petition is a carryover item and involves two variance requests: to permit a single‑family dwelling inside the feedlot setback and to allow a dwelling sited on prime soils in the Agricultural Resource Conservation Zoning District. Olivia said the structure already exists, is currently occupied by the petitioner’s son and family, and sits about 285 feet from a neighboring feedlot. She said the petition also requires a conditional use permit and that the planning commission had previously tabled the item.

Why it matters: The parcel lies in territory where Saint Charles Township has assumed local zoning authority, so while the Board of Adjustment handled the variance petitions now in process, future permitting, inspections and enforcement (including septic and building code matters) will be handled by the township if approvals are granted.

Petitioner Jake Shetler addressed the board and described the building’s history, saying the structure was moved onto posts and that he believed moving a building did not always require a permit. "I moved most of my buildings in... and I didn't get a permit for any of that," Shetler said. He also said the family currently uses a holding tank for the washroom and has tied into a well on an adjacent parcel.

Board members questioned whether the structure had been inspected and whether the county had enforcement authority for nonpermitted buildings. Olivia said the county has enforcement provisions (chapter 5) for work done without required permits and that a post‑construction site visit had been completed; she also stated the variance fee is $550. One board member warned of a broader pattern of nonpermitted buildings reported in neighboring townships and urged consequences for violations. "I don't like to see our county government being undermined because of a lack of enforcement of existing ordinances," said Amy, a board member who later voted against the variance.

The board briefly debated adding a condition to require double the after‑the‑fact permit fee (raising the variance fee from $550 to $1,100) as a deterrent. Kelsey moved to add the double‑fee condition and Amy seconded; supporters said the higher fee could discourage future violations, while opponents argued it would unfairly single out one property and would not address enforcement across the county. The motion to add the double fee failed on a 2‑2 tie.

Final action: Lynn moved and Kelsey seconded a motion to approve the variances with the drafted findings of fact and the attached conditions. The motion carried 3‑1; Amy opposed. The chair read the appeal process and timeline, noting that any aggrieved person has the right to appeal the decision to the district court within 30 days after receipt of the notice of decision.

What happens next: If the variances and any subsequent conditional use permit are approved, the petitioner must still obtain necessary septic and any remaining zoning permits through Saint Charles Township. The township will handle enforcement and any future appeals or permitting activity in that jurisdiction.

The Board of Adjustment closed the matter after reading appeal rights and adjourned the meeting.