Plan Commission — Minutes

Town of Vinland Plan Commission Meeting Minutes of August 3, 2026 PC meeting was called to order by Chairman Kuehnl at 6:30pm. Roll call was taken. Present were ZA O’Connell, Commissioners Giese, Kunde, Maertz, Pfaendtner, Chairman Kuehnl, and Secretary Brazee. 12 others were in attendance. Motion made by Kunde to approve the minutes of 6/22/26; seconded by Maertz. Motion carried. CUP Application of A2 zoning proposed private barn and storage/ Oppermann/ 0260364: Chairman Kuehnl asked ZA O’Connell to give background on the application. O’Connell noted a parcel with over 5 acres looking to have 2 personal horses with no intent for training or boarding of other people’s horses. O’Connell noted that there were questions if the applicant needed a CUP, so he wanted to go through the current Town of Vinland Code of Ordinances to explain his interpretation: 5 acre parcel that is A2 zoning district but is not necessarily being used for agricultural purposes. Started with A2 zoning in paragraph B in permitted uses. All permitted uses in A-1 are permitted. Then refer to A-1 and permitted uses are agricultural uses, so if you stop there you will determine no CUP is required. But if you refer to the definition of Agricultural use: the activity is based not on income, but on recreational. A-1 would not then not apply and would require you to go back to A-2. Paragraph B-2 zoning districts remain in general farming for principal farm accessory structure that the uses are in the R-1 uses. Then refer to R-1, Under Conditional uses- that is raising and stabling of livestock. Ran this interpretation thru to the town atty 2x in which the attorney advised that this is a reasonable approach although R-1 verbiage is cumbersome. Let the CUP process play out and referred the discussion back to Chairman Kuehnl. Chairman Kuehnl asked if anyone was present to speak on behalf of the applicant. Attorney & Magistrate Tiffany Woelfel w/ Amundsen & Davis spoke on behalf of Attorney Kubiak. A number of people are present to speak on behalf of the Oppermanns. Greg & Tammy Oppermann, Brian Ziegler as their contractor and Dawn Christensen representing their real estate representative, along w/ daughter of Oppermann’s who is currently residing at the residence. Broadly speaking, we do not believe a CUP is necessary and do feel that the use of the barn does fall under the A2 category especially since the use and understand that horses have been on the property for many years prior. They do not feel a CUP is necessary and are requesting confirmation of such, but if PC Board does decide that a CUP is required, and would candidly need to take more time to look into the logic there as that was not portrayed beforehand, (regarding the income issue). Will need to take a closer look at that, but still feel that the use of the barn will fall under the A-2 zoning category. Attorney Woelfel introduced Greg Oppermann to discuss the plan for the barn and Tammy Oppermann will discuss why the project is important to them. Greg Opperman: Respectively request the town to determine a CUP is not required for his property. His property consists of 5 acres and the purpose of the A2 district is to support agricultural purposes and keeping horses is consistent with that purpose. This property historically has had horses, so I’m simply continuing the agricultural use rather than introducing an incompatible activity. Contrary to belief, we are not operating a commercial stable or riding academy that would impact traffic on neighboring properties. The property is large enough to reasonably accommodate horses while meeting applicable setbacks. Since keeping horses is consistent w/ intent of A2 district and not identified as a conditional use in the ordinance, I respectfully request that the town recognize that a conditional use permit is not required. Furthermore, I’m really confused how we got here. The home was built in 1991 with a lot of different owners that had horses, donkeys, goats and chickens. This is a waste of time. Wasting time has now cost us money for representation. Selective targeting against the Oppermanns. We are all reasonable people here and we have a great property and a great community and yes, it’s been neglected over the years and we’re here to fix it. We are proud of the property right along the Wiowash trail and it will be admired. Tammy Oppermann: She has owned horses for 20 plus years and is a recreational trail rider. She is a nurse and not a horse trainer. This general farm district is meant for hobby farm friendly and building a barn and animals to enjoy it is expected for this property. There is a large tree line between them and the neighboring property (photo was provided). They want to build their building within the parameters of their lot, regardless of the location of the neighboring home. The zoning should not be able to be changed unilaterally by an assessor or anyone else on this board. Most properties have changes occur when new ownership occurs. Any change should be based on ordinance and we clearly have the right to have an ag building on a general ag farming district. Furthermore, I believe that asking us for a CUP violates our right of treatment under the law. Brian Ziegler: Contractor and friend of the Oppermanns here to support them and their project. This property will be brought to its glory. Any project that they’ve done in the past has turned out beautiful. The process has been a bit disjointed with the Town and County and difficult to navigate, in which a simple packet could have been put together to give direction and this could have been shortened up quite a bit. Dawn Christensen: Century21 realtor in which this was one of their listings. She’s been selling in this valley for over 40 years. The value of this property will be hurt if animals are not allowed. She sits on several boards and her daughter and granddaughter own Legacy Rose Farm in which they’ve sat with the Town of Clayton for over a year to obtain the CUP for their business and is really confused why a CUP is needed on this property. Oppermans are not doing anything business related and that is why they had to get a CUP in Clayton. A personal farm would not need a CUP in the Town of Clayton. Attorney/Judge Woelfel: Had opportunity to take a closer look at A-1 as well as the argument of income. Would note that accessory uses are permitted under A1, which would be permitted in A2. Under definition of accessory use it includes business activity whether or not associated with agricultural use, which meets the following requirements: So if the hangup is the fact that they are not doing this for commercial use- and not getting an income, subsection 4 would allow their activity or farm not associated with agricultural use and is conducted on a farm of the owner (which is them) requires no building or structures or improvements other than those described under subsection B 1 thru 3 and B-1 is a facility to keep a livestock on a farm does not impair or limit a future or current agricultural use of the farm and does not employ more than more 4 full-time employees on an annual basis. And they will not have any employees, so it does fall under accessory and therefore a permitted use and does not require a conditional use permit. T Oppermann: How many conditional use permits have been issued on this property. Brazee: None that I’m aware of Kuehnl: Is there a barn on the property now? And when you put up a new structure don’t you have to follow the code? T Oppermann: Yes, there was a barn and it has been torn down. Kuehnl asked O’Connell for input on new buildings and following the town code. O’Connell noted that the shed they’re looking to build is rather large, but with the A2 zoning- there is no maximum size limitation and they are well within the setbacks. Size of the barn and location is not the issue. No doubt that the barn will be nice, but we need to apply the zoning code consistently and he will be the first to admit that our code is not very clear. My suggestion is that once we get thru this and come back and revisit this ordinance, so we don’t have to go thru this again. O’Connell stated that he was trying to follow along with Atty/Judge Woelfel’s reasoning and he requested she speak with him after the meeting. L Oppermann stated that she is currently residing on the property and her parents are clearing the property of the overgrown brush and she knows that this place will exceed her expectations. C Schultz stated that she is not against horses and is not sure why the property owners need a CUP either, but just wanted to know what is going on next door to her property. Kuehl asked for confirmation of the total acreage. The property is 5.17 acres. Kuehl asked how many livestock are allowed on the property. Brazee & Starr provided ordinance 167-16 noting a total of 3 livestock (1 goose, 1 horse, 1 goat as an example). Woelfel: I don’t think the issue here is the number of horses, because they don’t even have a barn to put them in. Kuehl: Issue here is not the new structure nor having horses, but you are arguing whether or not you need a CUP or not. Our Zoning officer is interpreting the town Code. All I see here is that we are following the code and you’re still going to be able to have your structure. Give me a reason why you are so afraid of having a CUP. Woelfel: No one is afraid of having a CUP, but it’s unnecessary paperwork and it's just another burden and unnecessary permit on them that we don't read the ordinance to require the permit and we firmly believe that it is an already permitted use, so it does not require an additional process of going thru CUP permit. Our 2nd request was to issue the CUP with no additional requirements that were heard regarding setbacks. If you are unwilling to agree w/ our interpretation of the ordinances that do not require it, then we would ask that you issue the CUP and allow the permit to go thru. The CUP is an unnecessary permit that the statute does not require when it clearly falls under A2. And if the issue is that its not agricultural use because they are not in it to make money, then I think that the definition of accessory use under the 4th subsection, allows similar buildings that are not being used as ag use, but are similar to ag use, then it is an accessory and therefore also a permitted use without requiring an additional CUP. No one is afraid of a CUP, it's just an unnecessary additional step to avoid for you and for them so everything can go forward. Maertz: The process of the CUP is to talk about any type of restrictions. Applicants are not changing any of the characteristics of the neighborhood. A typical CUP for an example could be a storage facility- we would maybe suggest no commercial activity during 1opm to 6am. I don’t know what we would restrict. Schultz: They can have their building and horses. So what is the CUP? Kunde: It could be your opinion on what you would like to see for a restriction. Maertz: The typical CUP is an occurrence where a property owner is changing the foundation of the property for a solar farm or a storage unit as an example. The CUP would maybe require a fence around the storage facility. The CUP process is created to help minimize the disruption in the neighborhood, or its intent is to protect the neighbor’s interests. O’Connell: This whole process is designed to avoid conflicts down the road. Gives the neighbors opportunity to voice their concerns. At the end of the day, the PC can approve the CUP w/o any conditions or concerns, but at least we went thru the process. Kuehl asked what the other neighboring properties look like and how many houses are in that area. O’Connell displayed the GIS map of the parcel. Motion made by Pfaendtner to approve building without a CUP. With no second. Maertz stated that he had a different proposal as ultimately the PC is a quasi-government entity, and they make a proposal to the town board and they ultimately have the final say. To keep things moving; approve the CUP with no restrictions following the current code, but also note that a CUP is not needed. Rationalization is that if the Town Board indicates that they need a CUP we don’t have to rehash this project out again. Maertz then questioned other commissioners if anyone wanted to make any restrictions. Both Kunde and Pfaendtner agreed that they had no restrictions. Kuehl: Asked for discussion from O’Connell. O’Connell noted that all the neighboring properties are within the A2 district. But they are not farmland owners, but surrounding farmland. Maertz stated that we fundamentally need to revisit the conflicting code very soon. O’Connell: That the best case scenario is that the code is unclear and the worst case scenario is there is a void for these types of properties. Motion made by Maertz to approve a CUP with no restrictions outside of our standard code of ordinances, however making our recommendation to the Town Board that No CUP is needed. Our intent is to prevent having to come back since we do not feel the need for any additional restrictions outside of the standard code of ordinances/seconded by Kunde. Motion carried. Motion made by Maertz to adjourn/seconded by Pfaendtner. Meeting adjourned at 7:19pm Submitted, Karen Brazee _______________________ PC Secretary Joe Kuehnl, Chairman