Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/1998

Home

Z.B. August 10, 1998- Page3 Ordinance - state law? Does ordinance creating setbacks for feedlots conflict with Citation: Canadian Connection v. New Prairie Township, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. C6-97-2134 (1998) Canadian Connection and Solvie Farms Inc. (Solvies) applied for and re- ceived from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) a permit to build and operate a hog feedlot for 450 hogs in New Prairie Township. A year later, the Solvies applied to the MPCA for a permit to add 640 hogs. Township residents objected to the expansion, and the township said it would do whatever was needed to control the pollution from large feedlots. The MPCA issued the Solvies a permit to expand the feedlot, but told them they had to follow an odor management plan that outlined standards for stor- ing, processing~ monitoring, and applying manure. The MPCA also told the Solvies the feedlot permit didn't exempt them from any local pe~nni~ing re- quirements and recommended they contact their local planning and zoning office to get any additional permits they needed. A month later, the township adopted a new zoning ordinance that imposed a 200-foot setback on feedlots. The ordinance required the Solvies to apply for a variance and a conditional use permit to expand their feedlot. The Solvies applied for a variance and a conditional use permit, both of which were denied. The Solvies sued the township, claiming the township was inappropriately regulating pollution control through its zoning ordinance. They claimed the ordinance was invalid because it conflicted with state law, arguing their MI'CA permit included an odor management plan and allowed them to build a facility that was prohibited by the township's ordinance. They also argued the ordi- nance was irrational. The court found the ordinance was proper because the township was using its zoning authority to address the odor concerns of its residents, a_v_nd not as a form of pollution control. The Solvies appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Solvies couldn't expand the feedlot unless they complied with the zoning ordinance. The township's zoning ordinance didn't conflict with state law. The MPCA specifically told the Solvies its permit didn't exempt them from local govern- ment permitting requirements. The odor management plan was different from' the zoning ordinance's setback requirements. The management plan outlined how the Solvies could store, process, monitor, and apply manure, and required the Solvies to take wind patterns into account when locating manure storage basins. In contrast, the zoning ordinance addressed the effect of odor on nearby residents by imposing setbacks on feedlots. Because the odor management plan and the zoning ordinance addressed separate and distinct aspects of feedlot odor, they could be reconciled.