Buchanan County supervisors record conflicting entries on Stutzman rezoning after public hearing

The Buchanan County Board of Supervisors met July 6, 2026, for a public hearing on a rezoning request by Stutzman to convert approximately 0.374 acres in Washington Township (Section 10) from "A-1" Agricultural to "C" Commercial (Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 26-C-10; Resolution 26-77). The hearing opened at 9:31 a.m.; Zoning Director Amber Lorenzen presented information about the application and the hearing was closed at 9:45 a.m.

According to the meeting minutes, the board took a roll-call vote after discussion. One segment of the minutes records a motion to approve the request by resolution with Kurtz and Vogel recorded as voting "aye" and Wieland recorded as "nay." Later in the same set of minutes, the formal resolution text for 26-77 and Ordinance Amendment 26-C-10 appears; that resolution text states the rezoning "was denied by a vote of 2-1" and lists Kurtz and Vogel as voting against and Wieland as voting for. The minute record therefore contains contradictory accounts of the vote outcome.

The resolution and ordinance language in the minutes include the full legal description of the parcel: beginning at the southwest corner of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 10, Township 89 North, Range 9 West of the 5th P.M., Buchanan County, Iowa, with metes and bounds that total approximately 0.374 acres. The item is recorded in the minutes as "Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 26-C-10" and tied to "Resolution 26-77." The transcript identifies the applicant as Stutzman and places the property in Washington Township, Section 10.

Because the minutes record both a motion noted as "carried" with Kurtz and Vogel voting aye and a later resolution text explicitly stating the measure was denied 2–1 (Kurtz and Vogel against; Wieland for), the official record as posted is internally inconsistent. The minutes do not include any additional statement clarifying which entry reflects the board’s final, adopted action. The board’s recorded votes are shown in the meeting transcript but the contradiction in the archival text remains unresolved in these minutes.

No immediate follow-up action, such as an amended resolution or a request to correct the minutes, is recorded in the same meeting text. The county clerk or board staff would need to clarify the official outcome in the formal minutes or by publishing an amended record to resolve the discrepancy.