The most notable item on the agenda was the petition from Nels Robert Eison, who sought a variance to reduce the rear yard setback for a proposed accessory building intended to house a secondary dwelling. The board was presented with detailed visuals, including aerial photographs and site maps, to illustrate the layout of the approximately 4.25-acre property, which is zoned agricultural. The proposed building would measure 150 by 50 feet, replacing an existing smaller structure at the same setback distance. Staff emphasized the property’s legacy challenges due to its historical layout, which restricts new structures’ placements, and highlighted topographical challenges, including significant elevation changes that impact development options.

Public input played a role in the board’s decision, with an email from a neighbor, H. Sharp, expressing support for the variance application. The board was also informed of the county attorney’s office’s involvement in drafting findings and proposed conditions for approval. Notably, the property’s primary function was residential, which redefined the proposed structure as a residential accessory building despite its agricultural uses. The board considered this classification essential, as it determined the necessity of the variance.

The discussion revealed that the land behind the proposed building was owned by the Tessings, who had no objections to the proposal. The importance of maintaining access around the building for machinery and maintenance was a point of discussion. The applicant, Nels Eison, addressed the board. Eison explained that the building would accommodate maintenance, storage, workspace, and a reasonable living space for elderly parents. They mentioned that the building would be repurposed for non-commercial and non-residential use once no longer needed as a dwelling.

The board’s decision was influenced by the absence of objections from the five closest property owners and the collaborative approach to ensure alignment with community standards and environmental considerations. After the public comment period closed without any objections, a board member moved to approve the variance request, including the findings and conditions outlined in the staff report. The motion passed without opposition.

The board then turned its attention to a second variance petition regarding the Zeni subdivision. This petition, represented by Skip Weezer on behalf of Landon Jorgenson, sought a variance to Winona County subdivision regulations. The application stemmed from changes in surveying that affected the existing subdivision, originally platted in 1980. The variance was necessary to streamline the process of modifying the property lines to reflect the existing terrain more accurately, avoiding the need for multiple public hearings and lengthy procedural requirements.

The properties in question were located in New Hartford Township, with access via County Road 12 and Traven Court. Staff recommended approval of the variance with one condition, citing findings from the county attorney’s office. The board discussed the historical context, highlighting changes made before the county’s survey ordinance was implemented in 2006. The variance aimed to retroactively recognize these changes, clarifying property lines and merging parcels to facilitate the sale of a house built in the late 1800s.

During the discussion, Randy Hefner, a local resident, expressed concerns about potential impacts on property lines. However, he was reassured that his property would remain unchanged. The applicant clarified that the three parcels would remain distinct but unified under single ownership, simplifying management and facilitating the use of a septic system. The board opened the meeting to public comments, but no objections were voiced. A board member moved to approve the variance as recommended, and the motion was unanimously passed.