In the Matter of the Application of Dairy Ridge, LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A24-0640

In the Matter of the Application of Dairy
Ridge, LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit.

Filed March 31, 2025
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Todd County Board of Commissioners

Gary R. Leistico, Jayne E. Esch, Thomas S. Maigaard, Leistico & Esch, PLLC, Clear Lake,
Minnesota (for relator Dairy Ridge)

Kristin C. Nierengarten, Molly M. Fischl, Squires, Waldspurger & Mace, P.A.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Todd County)

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Kirk,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
CONNOLLY, Judge
On certiorari appeal from the denial of its request for a conditional use permit
(CUP), relator -applicant argues that respondent -county board’s decision was arbitrary,
capricious, unreasonable, and/or made without a rational basis. We affirm.

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
FACTS
Relator Dairy Ridge, LLC operates a 75-acre farm in Todd County that maintains
approximately 1,700 dairy cows. In November 2023, Dairy Ridge applied for a CUP with
respondent Todd County Board of Commissioners (board), seeking to expand its feedlot by
700 dairy cows. Dairy Ridge also so ught to construct two confinement barns; expand an
existing barn; construct both an earthen and a concrete liquid manure storage area; and expand
the feed storage area. In its CUP application, Dairy Ridge acknowledged that the feedlot
expansion would result in “an increase in traffic . . . from more milk trucks and trucks at
harvest,” and admitted that “[t]here may be a slight increase in odor.”
The Todd County Planning & Zoning Commission (planning commission) reviewed
Dairy Ridge’s CUP application at its December 7, 2023 public meeting. Prior to this meeting,
Mark Anderson, a hydrologist with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
submitted a letter to the planning commission expressing “concern regarding groundwater
sustainability” in light of Dairy Ridge’s CUP application. Anderson’s letter in formed the
planning commission that in 2020 or 2021, Dairy Ridge began operating a third well on its
property without approval from the DNR, which resulted in five “well interference issues
with neighboring properties.” These wells draw water from the B1 aquifer, and Anderson
explained that the B1 “aquifer is limited and there are no other mapped aquifers available
within one mile.” Anderson further explained that “[w]ater level data is limited from [the B1]
aquifer, but available data indicates a 25 -to-30-foot water decline over the past 20 years.”
And according to Anderson, Dairy Ridge applied to the DNR for the applicable permit to
3
operate the third well, but the DNR has “yet to issue an amendment adding the additional
irrigation well as [it is] waiting on monitoring data from the 2023 irrigation season.”
Several neighboring landowners also commented publicly about Dairy Ridge’s well
interferences and expressed concern that their wells might run dry if Dairy Ridge’s CUP
application were granted. In addition, several neighboring landowners expressed concerns
about increased traffic and safety issues related to Dairy Ridge’s CUP application.
After the December 7, 2023 meeting, the planning commission tabled the CUP
application to allow more time to gather information from the DNR. The planning
commission subsequently received the DNR’s 2023 groundwater investigation report
referenced in Anderson’s letter. The report documented the strain on the B1 aquifer due to
its high usage, particularly from the three wells operated by Dairy Ridge. The report also
noted that there were five well interferences that occurred in 2021. Although the report
acknowledged that Dairy Ridge reimbursed the well owners for the costs related to well
interference, the report noted that more well interference is expected. The DNR’s report
concluded that it would need to monitor groundwater levels in the B1 aquifer and collect
additional well information to monitor and assess the viability of the B1 aquifer.
At the next meeting on January 4, 2024, the planning commission again heard public
comments related to Dairy Ridge’s CUP application.1 Anderson attended the meeting and

1 A decision on a CUP application must be made within 60 days of the application unless
the applicable county extends the deadline by another 60 days for further consideration.
Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subds. 2, 3(f) (2024). Prior to the January 4, 2024 meeting before the
planning commission, the board voted to extend the statutory 60 -day deadline to allow
additional time to gather necessary information.
4
reiterated concerns related to groundwater sustainability because the B1 aquifer is “very
confined” with a “limited capacity.” Anderson also reiterated that well interferences will
continue if the DNR allows additional use of the B1 aquifer. And Anderson stated that the
DNR might choose not to grant Dairy Ridge’s application for use of its third well in light of
the B1 aquifer’s sustainability issues.
Neighboring landowners again expressed concern about the B1 aquifer’s sustainability
if the CUP were granted. Another neighboring landowner expressed concern that the feedlot
expansion would cause increased odors. And another neighboring landowner stated that their
well water contained high levels of nitrates, which increases the risk of cancer. The neighbor
opined that the high levels of nitrates might be related to manure from Dairy Ridge.
Dairy Ridge’s representative stated that Dairy Ridge was in the process of obtaining a
permit to pump water from the H1 aquifer, which is a more “robust” aquifer located “in the
airport area.” He also stated that, if the B1 aquifer “starts falling down,” Dairy Ridge would
engage in nighttime irrigation, which he described as a more conservation-oriented irrigation
process.
At the end of the January 4 meeting, the planning commission decided to recommend
approval of the CUP application with several conditions, including the requirement that Dairy
Ridge “obtain . . . DNR waters withdrawal permitting.” The planning and zoning division
director then spoke at the next county board meeting on January 16, 2024, and explained that
the recommendation included conditions that provided safeguards for manure spreading and
seepage. He also explained that, because Dairy Ridge’s feedlot is greater than 1,000 animals,
5
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), not the county, controls the regulation of
manure management.
Several neighboring landowners also spoke at the meeting and expressed the following
concerns related to Dairy Ridge’s CUP application : (1) the mismanagement of manure
spreading and its runoff into a nearby lake, which is already high in phosphorus; and (2) public
health, safety, and welfare due to high levels of nitrates in well water. Conversely, a Dairy
Ridge representative claimed that if the CUP were granted, “we will save 18 million gallons
of water from the aquifer, because we are going to reuse it . . . from our third stage of our
manure pit and the cows are going to drink, in theory. . . . [S]o there’s 11 million gallons of
water saved by . . . this expansion.” He also claimed that Dairy Ridge was “likely” to get the
permit from the DNR to draw water from the H1 aquifer because the DNR is “very favorable
of pulling water from the airport aquifer, which is a very robust aquifer.” And the
representative stated that Dairy Ridge had purchased land close to nearby lakes to act as a
“buffer” to prevent manure runoff.
After hearing public comments, members of the board expressed concern over water
quantity levels of the B1 aquifer, and whether permitting through the DNR would actually
ensure water quantity protection. Another board member wanted to know how much water
the DNR would allow Dairy Ridge to draw from the B1 aquifer. The board concluded that a
workshop was necessary to discuss these lingering concerns.
At the first workshop on February 6, 2024, the Todd County Soil and Water
Conversation district manager confirmed that Dairy Ridge is regulated by the MPCA, and
that a recent inspection by the MPCA found Dairy Ridge’s National Pollutant Discharge
6
Elimination System permit to be in full compliance. The district manager also acknowledged
that Dairy Ridge’s current livestock water permit draws from the B1 aquifer and that there
were four or five well interferences in 2021. But the district manager claimed that the well
interferences were “not entirely associated with the livestock operation,” rather, they were
“more likely [caused] from unusual irrigation usage in the area due to a drought year.”
Finally, the district manager opined that concerns re lated to the B1 aquifer should be
addressed directly with the DNR since that is their expertise.
At the next workshop on February 20, 2024, a hydrologist spoke on behalf of Dairy
Ridge and explained that, even with the feedlot expansion, the proposal is to use significantly
less water from the B1 aquifer because Dairy Ridge had begun the process to a pply for a
permit to draw from the H1 aquifer. But the hydrologist acknowledged that, during dry
seasons, the water levels in both the B1 and H1 aquifers might slightly drop because a lack of
precipitation would require more irrigation, and “the more you pump from the aquifer, the
lower that water level is going to go during the growing season.”
At the end of the workshop, the division director proposed several conditions, in
addition to the conditions suggested by the planning commission, for the board to consider
with the CUP. These conditions included requirements that Dairy Ridge obtain proper
permitting from the appropriate governmental agencies.
After the February 20 workshop, the DNR sent a letter to Dairy Ridge regarding the
DNR’s preliminary assessment for well construction in connection with Dairy Ridge’s
outstanding application to source water from the H1 aquifer in addition to sourcing from the
B1 aquifer. The letter identified potentially significant resource impacts on nearby trout
7
streams, and stated that “[a] permit application to use groundwater near trout streams must be
evaluated so the project does not negatively impact trout stream resources.” The letter also
stated that Dairy Ridge’s project could impact domestic wells, surface water features, and
drinking water. And the letter added that a groundwater technical review of Dairy Ridge’s
application was necessary and that, depending on the results of this review, “an observation
well in the water table aquifer or an aquifer test may be recommended.”
At the next board meeting on March 5, 2024, several neighboring landowners
continued to voice their concerns related to the B1 aquifer’s sustainability, as well as potential
detrimental environmental effects associated with the CUP. Moreover, one board member
expressed concern that Dairy Ridge’s permit applications had not yet been granted and that
an analysis of the B1 aquifer had not yet been conducted to determine the health of that
aquifer. This board member added that the DNR was still waiting for information related to
an “elevation threshold,” which was imperative to determine a “safe yield analysis.” And
another board member indicated that this information may not be available for months.
At the end of the meeting, the board voted to deny the CUP. A written notice of denial
was then issued, which provided the following reasons for the board’s denial of the CUP:
1. Lack of information provided by the [DNR] in order to make
an informed decision about water quantity protections.
2. Insufficient availability of groundwater to supply the
requested increase in animal units.
3. Lack of correct information related to ground water and that
the County shall have the final decision in protection of ground
water quantity.
4. Health, safety, and welfare for the citizens of Todd County.

This certiorari appeal follows.
8
DECISION
Dairy Ridge challenges the board’s decision to deny its CUP application. “A county
board’s decision regarding a CUP is quasi -judicial and reviewable by writ of certiorari.”
August v. Chisago C nty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 868 N.W.2d 741, 744 (Minn. App. 2015) , rev.
denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 2015). Out of respect for the separation of powers, our review is
limited and deferential . See Big Lake Ass’n v. Saint Louis Cnty. Plan. Comm’n, 761
N.W.2d 487, 491 (Minn. 2009). We will not overturn a county board ’s decision simply
because we may have come to a different conclusion. See VanLandschoot v. City of
Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503, 509 (Minn. 1983). But, “[s]ince zoning laws are a
restriction on the use of private property, a landowner whose application for a [CUP] has
been denied has a lighter burden than one who challenges approval of a permit.” RDNT,
LLC v. City of Bloomington, 861 N.W.2d 71, 75 n.4 (Minn. 2015).
The basic standard of review for all zoning matters is the same: “whether the zoning
authority’s action was reasonable.” Honn v. City of Coon Rapids , 313 N.W.2d 409, 417
(Minn. 1981). Caselaw has expressed the standard in various ways, including whether the
decision is “unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.” Id.; see also RDNT, 861 N.W.2d at 75-
76 (applying the unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious standard to a CUP appeal). This
court reviews the county board’s decision “to see whether there was a reasonable basis for
the decision, or whether the county acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.”
Schwardt v. County of Watonwan, 656 N.W.2d 383, 386 (Minn. 2003).
In considering whether a CUP and its conditions are reasonable we apply a two-step
inquiry. RDNT, 861 N.W.2d at 75-76. “First, we must determine if the reasons given by
9
[the board] were legally sufficient. Second, if the reasons given are legally sufficient, we
must determine if the reasons had a factual basis in the record.” Id. (citation omitted). The
party challenging the decision must prove that the reasons for the decision were legally
insufficient or not supported by the record. Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488,
492 (Minn. App. 1995). But “[n]ot all reasons for the denial of a [CUP] need be legally
sufficient and supported by facts in the record. Thus, a city’s denial of a land use request
is not arbitrary when at least one of the reasons for the denial satisfies the rational basis
test.” Trisko v. City of Waite Park , 566 N.W.2d 349, 35 2 (Minn. App. 1997) (quotations
and citation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 25, 1997).
Dairy Ridge challenges the board’s decision to deny the CUP application, arguing
that the decision is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable because “all reasons given by
the [b]oard lack a factual basis,” and “at least two of the reasons given by the [b]oard are
legally insufficient.” Dairy Ridge also contends that the denial of its CUP application is
unreasonable because Dairy Ridge “demonstrated that all of the standards specified by the
zoning ordinance as conditions of granting the permit had been met.” We address these
arguments in turn.
A. Lack of information provided by the DNR related to water quantity.
The first reason provided by the board for denying the CUP application was: “Lack
of information provided by the [DNR] in order to make an informed decision about water
quantity protections.” Dairy Ridge argues first that this reason is legally insuffici ent
because nothing in the applicable zoning ordinance “authorizes the [b]oard to deny a CUP
10
application because a specific state agency did not demonstrate one of the factors for
granting a CUP had been satisfied.” We disagree.
Under Minnesota law, a county “may by ordinance designate certain types of
developments . . . as conditional uses under zoning regulations.” Minn. Stat. § 394.3 01,
subd. 1 (2024). “Conditional uses may be approved upon a showing by an applicant that
standards and criteria stated in the ordinance will be satisfied.” Id. In determining what
constitutes a legally sufficient reason for denying a CUP, we look to the applicable zoning
ordinance as an expression of the county board ’s policy determinations rega rding what
uses will promote the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. See Honn, 313
N.W.2d at 417.
Pursuant to Todd County’s land-use ordinance, “[t]he applicant for a [CUP] has the
burden of demonstrating that the standards listed in [the ordinance] have been satisfied.”
Todd County Planning and Zoning Ordinance § 5.05 (A) (2017). But as the board points
out, there is nothing in the applicable ordinance prohibiting the board from considering
evidence, or a lack thereof, from state agencies or other sources when issuing its findings.
See id. Moreover, caselaw explains that, in reviewing a decision by a local governing body,
the reviewing court looks to the record as a whole to determine if the decision was legally
valid. See Barton Contracting Co. v. City of Afton, 268 N.W.2d 712, 718 (Minn. 1978). It
follows that, in making its decision, the board also looks to the record as a whole, not just
the information provided by Dairy Ridge. Therefore, the board’s reliance on the lack of
information provided by the DNR is a legally sufficient basis to deny the CUP application.
11
Dairy Ridge also contends that the first reason provided by the board for denying
the CUP lacks a factual basis in the record. But Todd County’s zoning ordinance provides
that, in granting a CUP, the board must find:
The use will not create a pollution hazard or other
detrimental environmental effects both during and after
construction. Effects to be considered shall include, but not be
limited to, soil erosion and sediment ation, pollution or other
degradation of surface waters and ground water supplies,
impact on water supply, and adequacy of sewage treatment.

Todd County Planning and Zoning Ordinance § 5.05(B)(v) (2017) (emphasis added).
Here, one of the primary issues related to Dairy Ridge’s CUP application involved
groundwater quantity concerns. In assessing this issue, the board looked to the DNR for
information related to groundwater testing and Dairy Ridge’s permit applications. But the
record reflects that, throughout the CUP -application process, the board lacked definitive
answers addressing the groundwater concerns. For example, the record indicates that the
DNR intended to monitor groundwater levels in the B1 aquifer and collect well information
to monitor and assess the viability of the B1 aquifer. But the record also reflects that this
information was unavailable at the time the board denied Dairy Ridge’s CUP application.
Moreover, the record indicates that, at the time Dairy Ridge’s CUP application was
denied, the DNR had still not approved the permit for the third well on Dairy Ridge’s
property that was pumping water from the B1 aquifer. In fact, Anderson stated that the
DNR might choose not to grant Dairy Ridge’s application for use of its third well in light of
the B1 aquifer’s sustainability issues. And although Dairy Ridge proposed using water from
the H1 aquifer, the DNR had not yet issued a permit allowing Dairy Ridge to proceed with
12
this plan. This lack of information was consistent throughout the proceedings, and the
board consistently referenced this lack of information at the various meetings. As such,
there is a sufficient factual basis in the record to support the first reason provided by the
board for denying the CUP.
B. Insufficient availability of groundwater.
The second reason provided by the board for denying Dairy Ridge’s CUP
application is: “Insufficient availability of groundwater to supply the requested increase in
animal units.” Dairy Ridge contends that this reason is “arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonable, and lacks a factual basis” because it “directly contradicts the [b]oard’s first
reason for denial—that they do not have enough information to make a decision on ground
water protection/quantity.”
We are not persuaded. As the board points out, it “did not find that there was simply
insufficient information about groundwater . . . . Rather it found that there was insufficient
information related to groundwater protections to allow for an informed decision on such
protections.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, the board identified an issue related to
the sufficiency of groundwater availability, and then determined that it needed additional
information from the DNR concer ning how to address this issue in light of Dairy Ridge’s
CUP application. As addressed above, this additional information was lacking at the time
the board denied the CUP application. And without this information, the board determined
that it could not i mpose conditions to reach a solution that would satisfy the CUP criteria
after several months of consideration. As such, the board’s first and second reasons for
denying the CUP are not directly contradictory.
13
Dairy Ridge also argues that the second reason provided by the board for denying
the CUP lacks “meaningful support” in the record because the proposed expansion will
significantly reduce the amount of water appropriated from the B1 aquifer by allowing
Dairy Ridge to (1) reuse water taken from the B1 aquifer, and (2) draw water from the
more “robust” H1 aquifer. But “counties have wide latitude in making decisions about
special use permits.” Schwardt, 656 N.W.2d at 386. And it is well settled that it is not our
function as the reviewing court to reweigh the evidence. RDNT, 861 N.W.2d at 76. Rather,
our function is to “review the record to determine whether there was legal evidence to
support the zoning authority’s decision.” Id. (quotation omitted). In doing so, we generally
defer to the zoning authority’s judgment on conflicting evidence. Id.
Here, there was ample evidence in the record suggesting that the B1 aquifer has
become stressed. Although the hydrologist who spoke on behalf of Dairy Ridge explained
that the feedlot expansion would use significantly less water from the B1 aquifer because
Dairy Ridge had begun the process to apply for a permit to draw from the H1 aquifer, there
was no requirement that the board place greater weight on the hydrologist’s testimony. In
fact, the hydrologist acknowledged that during dry seasons, the water levels in both the B1
and H1 aquifers might slightly drop. And the hydrologist acknowledged that a lack of
precipitation would require more irrigation, and that “the more you pump from the aquifer,
the lower that water level is going to go during the growing season.”
Moreover, the record reflects that, at the time the CUP was denied, Dairy Ridge’s
permit application to draw from the H1 aquifer had not yet been approved. In fact, at the
February 20 workshop, the DNR sent a letter to Dairy Ridge regarding the DNR’s preliminary
14
assessment for well construction related to Dairy Ridge’s application to source water from
the H1 aquifer. This letter identified potentially significant resource impacts on nearby trout
streams, and stated that “[a] permit application to use groundwater near trout streams must be
evaluated so the project does not negatively impact trout stream resources.” The letter also
stated that Dairy Ridge’s project could impact domestic wells, surface water features, and
drinking water. As such, evidence in the re cord suggests that approval of Dairy Ridge’s
permit to draw water from the H1 aquifer was not a foregone conclusion.
Furthermore, several neighboring landowners expressed concerns that Dairy Ridge’s
CUP would adversely affect their wells. For example, one landowner claimed that Dairy
Ridge caused his and other nearby neighbors’ wells to run dry. And another landowner stated
that his well was “sucking a little air,” and that his neighbor had to drop his well by 20 feet.
Accordingly, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board’s denial of the
CUP application based on “[i]nsufficient availability of groundwater to supply the requested
increase in animal units.”
C. Lack of correct information related to groundwater.
The third reason provided by the board for denying the CUP application was due to
“[l]ack of correct information related to ground water and that the County shall have the final
decision in protection of ground water quantity.” Dairy Ridge challenges this reason, arguing
first that it is legally insufficient “because it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding
of conditional use permits and the procedures for issuance under the Todd County Zoning
Ordinance and other applicable law.” According to Dairy Ridge, the board “can obtain
15
additional information and ensure compliance with specific directives by making the
permit conditional on the satisfaction of certain conditions/criteria.”
To support its position, Dairy Ridge cites Yang v. County of Carver , in which the
relator sought a CUP to operate a custom slaughterhouse as a farm-related business on his
property. 660 N.W.2d 828, 8 30 (Minn. App. 2003). The county denied the CUP, in part
because the relator’s “operational plan failed to adequately describe provisions taken to
comply with state regulations concerning water service, sewage and wastewater disposal,
parking, sanitation facilities, rendering, and livestock delivery at the sl aughterhouse.” Id.
at 835. On appeal, this court noted that the relator “recognized that he cannot operate his
slaughterhouse until he complies with all applicable state regulations and obtains the
relevant licenses.” Id. The court also noted that it was suggested that the county condition
issuance of the CUP on the relator obtaining the relevant licenses. Id. This court then
stated that “ specific state licensing standards concerning water service, sewage and
wastewater disposal, sanitary facilities, livestock delivery, and rendering services are not
established by the [county] or [county] ordinance, and it is not the county’s responsibility,
under the ordinance, to enforce compliance with these standards. ” Id. Thus, the court
concluded that the county “acted arbitrarily in denying [the relator’s] application on the
grounds that his operational plan inadequately described his compliance with state
standards” because the county “had no duty to ensure state regul ations were met, and
should have reserved the question of regulatory compliance for relevant state agencies by
conditioning issuance of the [CUP] on [the relator’s] confirmed compliance with state
standards.” Id.
16
We conclude that Yang is distinguishable from the circumstances presented in this
case. In Yang, the relator needed certain permits and licenses in order to operate his
slaughterhouse. Id. In contrast, the outstanding permits in this case related to groundwater
concerns were not necessarily a requirement for Dairy Ridge to operate a feedlot. In other
words, the record indicates that Dairy Ridge has the necessary licenses to operate a feedlot,
but it sought permits related to the B1 and H1 aquifers. Th e concerns related to
groundwater involved both quality and quantity and may not have been alleviated even if
Dairy Ridge’s permit applications were granted by the DNR. For example, the hydrologist
who spoke on behalf of Dairy Ridge acknowledged that, during dry seasons, the water levels
in both the B1 and H1 aquifers might slightly drop, indicating concerns related to water
quantity even if Dairy Ridge’s permit to draw from the H1 aquifer was approved.
Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, a letter sent from the DNR after the
February 20 workshop indicated that, even if Dairy Ridge’s permit to draw from the H1
aquifer was approved, Dairy Ridge’s project could impact domestic wells, surface water
features, and drinking water. The record reflects that these concerns include the presence of
nitrates in local wells, which increases the risk of cancer. And the record reflects that the
presence of nitrates in local drinking water may be exacerbated if Dairy Ridge’s CUP were
approved due to the increase in manure.
State law recognizes that counties have general authority to promote health, safety,
and the general welfare of their communities through planning and zoning. See Minn. Stat.
§§ 394.21, .301 (2024). And in determining what constitutes a legally sufficient reason for
denying a CUP, we look to the applicable zoning ordinance as an expression of the county
17
board’s policy determinations regarding what uses will promote the public health, safety, or
general welfare. See Honn, 313 N.W.2d at 417. The applicable ordinance in this instance
specifically provides that the board must make findings regarding impacts on surrounding
properties, detrimental environmental effects on groundwater, and potential adverse effects
on public health, safety, and welfare. Todd County Planning and Zoning Ordinance
§ 5.05(B) (2017).
Here, in light of the groundwater-quality concerns, the board’s decision to deny Dairy
Ridge’s CUP application for a lack of correct information related to groundwater directly
involved the health, safety, and general welfare of the local community. The board’s third
reason for denying the CUP was, therefore, legally sufficient.
Dairy Ridge also contends that the board’s third reason for denying the CUP lacks an
adequate factual basis. But this reason is similar to the first two reasons provided by the board
because it relates to groundwater concerns. As addressed above, the record reflects that the
board consistently lamented about the lack of accurate information related to the effect that
Dairy Ridge’s feedlot expansion would have on groundwater quantity and quality. And, as
addressed above, the record supports the board’s concerns. Although Dairy Ridge claims it
provided information to alleviate the concerns related to groundwater quantity and quality,
the board was not obligated to credit this information, particularly in light of the DNR’s lack
of definitive information on these issues. It is not the province of this court to reweigh the
evidence considered by the board. See VanLandschoot, 336 N.W.2d at 509 (stating that a
reviewing court will not overturn a county board’s decision simply because it may have come
18
to a different conclusion). As such, the board’s third reason for denying Dairy Ridge’s CUP
application is supported by a sufficient factual basis.
D. Health, safety, and welfare of county citizens.
The fourth reason provided by the board for denying the CUP application was:
“Health, safety, and welfare for the citizens of Todd County.” Dairy Ridge challenges this
reason, claiming that the conditions articulated by the division director “ensure[s] the
protection of the health, safety, and welfare of Todd County’s citizens.” And Dairy Ridge
contends that the record “demonstrates [that] the proposed expansion will actually help the
health, safety, and welfare of Todd County citizens” because its “proposal for expansion will
substantially reduce water appropriation from the B1 aquifer,” and the proposed conditions
“ensure manure spreading and storage would not result in any adverse effects.” Thus, Dairy
Ridge contends that the fourth reason provided by the board lacks an adequate factual basis.
We disagree. As addressed above, the board’s reservations related to Dairy Ridge’s
feedlot expansion were primarily based on groundwater quantity and quality concerns, which
are directly related to the health, safety, and general welfare of the county citizens. Although
Dairy Ridge offered evidence tending to alleviate groundwater quantity and quality concerns,
there was also evidence presented contradicting Dairy Ridge’s position.
Moreover, the record reflects that neighboring landowners expressed concern that
Dairy Ridge’s expansion would increase traffic and odor. In fact, Dairy Ridge’s CUP
application acknowledges that its expansion would increase traffic and odor from manure.
An increase in traffic and odor are also directly related to the health, safety, and general
19
welfare of local citizens. Accordingly, the board’s fourth reason for denying Dairy Ridge’s
CUP application has a factual basis in the record.
E. Applicable zoning ordinance conditions.
Finally, Dairy Ridge argues that the denial of its CUP application is unreasonable
because its “proposed expansion meets all standards for granting a CUP outlined in Todd
County’s Zoning Ordinance.” We disagree. Under Minnesota law, a county “may by
ordinance designate certain types of developments . . . as conditional uses under zoning
regulations.” Minn. Stat. § 394.301, subd. 1. Before approving a conditional use, a county
may require an applicant to show that the standards and criteria in the ordinance will be
satisfied. Id.; see also Schwardt, 656 N.W.2d at 387 (“[C]ounties may approve conditional
uses if the applicant satisfies the standards set out in the county ordinance.”).
The Todd County zoning ordinance lays out nine findings that the board must make
prior to granting a conditional use permit. Todd County Planning and Zoning Ordinance
§ 5.05. These nine findings require consideration of various factors, such as the impacts
on development in the surrounding areas; detrimental environmental effects, including
groundwater impacts; and impacts on public health, safety, and welfare. Id. § 5.05(B).
Here, despite Dairy Ridge’s argument to the contrary, its proposed expansion fails
to satisfy all the standards for granting a CUP as outlined in the Todd County zoning
ordinance. As addressed above, the board found that there were concerns related to
groundwater quantity and quality, which is one of the considerations listed in the applicable
ordinance. See id. Moreover, the board found that there were concerns related to the
impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, which is another consideration listed in the
20
ordinance. See id. These findings are supported by the record and provided a sufficient
legal and factual basis to deny Dairy Ridge’s CUP application.
Dairy Ridge further argues that, because the planning commission voted to approve
the CUP based upon certain conditions, the board acted arbitrarily by failing to consider
the planning commission’s decision, and ultimately denying the CUP. Indeed, the boa rd
is required by ordinance to “consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning
Commission.” Id. But the ordinance does not require the board to adopt the planning
commission’s recommendation; rather, the board must simply consider it. See id. The
record reflects that the board considered the planning commission’s recommendation, but
decided to deny the permit based on several considerations. As addressed above, the
board’s decision is legally sufficient and has a factual basis in the record. Accordingly,
Dairy Ridge has failed to meet its burden to show that the board’s decision is unreasonable,
arbitrary, or capricious.
Affirmed.