Winona County board approves variance to allow dwelling on prime soils and recognize 65‑ft setback near Lanes Valley Creek

The Winona County Board of Adjustment voted to approve petition BOA12182501, allowing conversion of an existing agricultural building into a 24‑by‑32 dwelling unit on soils identified as class 2 and recognizing an existing 65‑foot setback from the ordinary high‑water level (OHW) in lieu of the 100‑foot setback required by the Winona County zoning ordinance.

Planning staff described two separate variance requests and recommended approval with conditions after noting a recent communication from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) following a site visit. Staff explained the structure was built in 2021 as an agricultural building and that the conversion to a dwelling triggers shoreland rules and the county’s prime‑soils standards. The property is located in Section 36 of New Hartford Township near the county line and is mapped as sitting on Class 2 soils in the immediate building footprint; packet materials referenced a 52‑acre parcel and additional adjacent acreage bringing total associated parcels to roughly 180 acres.

Applicant testimony and site work

Applicant Mike Kenhammer spoke for the petitioners and said his daughter, Sheila, would occupy the unit. He described the building’s original purpose as equipment and vehicle storage and outlined extensive bank‑stabilization work around Lanes Valley Creek: “I put in 38,000 pounds of 6 to 8 inch aggregate on the bank with a base underneath it to prevent any erosion,” Kenhammer said. He also said the owners seeded the banks, estimating between 500 and 800 pounds of seed was applied, and that the building sits about 18–21 feet above the streambed in the immediate area.

Board members questioned whether the building’s original siting followed earlier advice (one commissioner referenced USDA involvement at the time of construction) and whether farm operations would continue. Kenhammer replied that farm equipment is stored there now and that his grandson may farm some of the ground in the future; he also described limited county/state inspections at construction (electrical inspection cited).

DNR and erosion context

Staff flagged a recent DNR communication based on a site visit and highlighted shoreline mapping using lidar and updated floodplain data; staff noted differences between older 1984 effective maps and newer elevation data when assessing the base flood and setback measurements. Board members and staff discussed the statutory distinction between the 50‑foot riparian buffer standard applied to row cropping (Board of Water and Soil Resources guidance) and the 100‑foot building setback found in Winona County’s shoreland regulations.

Public comment and deliberation

The board opened the public hearing. Todd Weimler (who identified himself in the record and provided an address in La Crescent) spoke in support of the applicants’ cleanup and restoration work along the stream, saying the property owners had been working for several years to reseed and remove debris. After public comment the hearing was closed, and board members deliberated, noting both the applicant’s visible bank improvements and some continuing erosion on steep banks that warranted careful conditions.

Approval and appeal rights

Lynn moved to approve the variances with the conditions recommended by staff; Ed seconded. The board approved the motion by voice vote (recorded as "aye"); the chair read the appeal language and advised that any aggrieved person or local department may appeal the decision to district court within 30 days of receipt of the decision.

What the approval does and next steps

The approval permits the conversion of the existing agricultural structure into a dwelling unit on the identified parcel(s) subject to the conditions the board attached (conditions referenced in staff materials). If an appeal is filed within the 30‑day statutory window, the district court may review questions of law and fact. Otherwise, the approval will move forward to the planning commission and any required follow‑up (septic and well permits, conditional use permit processes, and any required shoreland mitigation) must be completed before occupancy.

Clarifications and uncertainties

The transcript and materials show some inconsistent name spellings in the record for petitioners (the meeting docket lists "Todd and Sheila Wehmiller," while a public commenter signed the record as "Todd Weimler"); the board record and any submitted written materials should be consulted for the authoritative petitioner name for appeals or legal filings. Several site specifics recorded in testimony — for example, parcel aggregation, exact vote roll call (the motion was decided by voice vote and individual vote names were not entered), and final engineering details for septic placement — were not specified in the oral record and will need to be confirmed in the official file if required.