Board denies Hyer family variance request to place dwelling 205 feet from feedlot; 1,000‑foot setback required

5900175 · October 2, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
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 Board of Adjustment denied a petition to place a proposed dwelling roughly 205 feet from a neighboring registered feedlot where county rules require a 1,000‑foot setback for feedlots above 50 animal units. Neighbors with the feedlot opposed the request citing animal safety and nuisance concerns.

The Winona County Board of Adjustment denied a variance request on Sept. 18 from Daniel and Kathy Hyer and petitioner Robert (Bob) Hyer that would have allowed a proposed dwelling to be sited about 205 feet from a neighboring feedlot. County rules require a 1,000‑foot setback when a registered feedlot exceeds 50 animal units.

Planning staff reported the proposed parcel is in Section 6 of New Hartford Township and would be created from a larger tract; the proposed building site lies on class 2 soils and the county’s setback matrix requires 1,000 feet for the current feedlot size (just over 50 animal units). Staff identified difficulty supporting several required variance findings (criteria 2, 3, 4 and 7) and recommended denial.

Petitioner Robert Hyer said he wanted to move near family and help with farm operations; he said the larger parcel owner supported the split and the buyer of the woodland parcel intended recreational use. County attorney Steve reminded the board that Minnesota Statutes §462.357 requires that practical difficulties be due to unique property circumstances and that economic reasons alone are insufficient.

Several neighbors, including feedlot owner Steve Weezer and son Jared Weezer, testified in opposition. Jared said the feedlot houses bulls, cows and calves, and warned animals can be spooked by unfamiliar people; another neighbor, Caitlin Delarwell, cited public‑safety concerns and summer flies and odors. The board discussed alternative locations and temporary accessory dwellings but concluded the application did not meet the statutory and ordinance standards for a variance and denied it.

The board’s denial will stand unless appealed to district court within 30 days.