Skip to main content

Planning commission OKs feedlot ordinance changes

Lead Summary

Feedlots again took center stage in Dodge County last week as the county Planning Commission approved changes to the county zoning ordinance. The changes now go to the Dodge County Board for final approval.
The changes deal primarily with the section of the ordinance specifying items needed in the application for a feedlot permit.
The ordinance currently lists a number of items that are required to be provided by an individual seeking a Conditional Use Permit to run a feedlot. This list includes, among others, the maximum number of animals of each type that will be confined at the feedlot at one time, a description of geological conditions, soil types and high water tables, a map or aerial photo of the site, manure management information and the location of wells.
Under the changes approved by the Planning Commission, the ordinance would simply read: “An application for a CUP shall be submitted on forms provided by the County.”
The proposed change, Zoning Administrator Melissa DeVetter told commission members, does not mean that the county is eliminating the public hearing process or that an applicant will not have to submit the listed items before the feedlot can actually be constructed.
The county attorney recommended the change, she said, after District Court Judge Jodi Williamson ruled last fall that the ordinance required all the items listed had to be submitted prior to a public hearing and approval of a conditional use permit.
Williamson interpreted the wording of the ordinance differently than the county intended, DeVetter said.
DeVetter said the county has always intended that some of the requirements of the ordinance could be met after the public hearing because everything listed in the ordinance is required by state law.
The change was needed, she said, because the county found that “words are the playground of lawyers.”
Williamson made her ruling in a lawsuit brought by Westfield Township residents Lowell and Evelyn Trom against Dodge County, the Dodge County Board and two area farmers.
The Troms suit alleged that Dodge County officials had not followed their own ordinance in granting Nick Masching a permit to build a feedlot on a six-acre parcel he had purchased near the Trom’s farm.
Williamson agreed with the Troms that the items detailed in the ordinance had not been submitted by the time of the initial public hearing.
DeVetter told the commissioners that the county never intended that everything be submitted with the initial application but rather that all items were submitted before the final construction permits were issued.
She said the process actually involved two separate agencies and permits.
The conditional use permit, which is granted by the county, is simply the county saying that a feedlot is permitted on the property.
The county issues a second permit, a Construction Short-Form, on behalf of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, said Steve Schmidt of the MPCA.
The items listed in the ordinance, DeVetter said, were ones also included in the short-form permit required by the MPCA. Eliminating the list from the ordinance, she said, did not, therefore, mean they were not still required.
The reason the county did not require some of the items before the conditional use permit  is because some of those items, such as soil testing or building design could change based on changes made by either the Planning Commission or County Board. If the applicant were required to submit soil borings, for example, with the initial application and the board said the building had to be moved 300 feet the applicant would have to redo the soil testing, DeVetter said. This would cause the applicant to spend more money than if the testing were done after the conditional use permit were approved.
At the public hearing held before the Planning Commission acted on the proposed changes there were passionate comments from individuals on both sides of the controversy.
Sonja Trom Eayrs, daughter of the Troms and a Twin Cities attorney, asked, as she has in the pat that commission members who are involved in feedlots on their own farms or connected to feedlots in some way resign from the commission because of a conflict of interest.
“There are changes that need to be made but they are not of the ordinance,” Trom Eayrs said.
Not requiring all the information to be available at the time of the initial application and the public hearing limits the amount of information available to the public and discussion at the hearing.
Her feelings were echoed by several other speakers opposing the changes while several members of township boards spoke in support of the changes.
Dean Schram, owner of Innovative Seed and Consulting in Claremont, also spoke in favor of the changes, saying he was at the hearing to show his support for agriculture in the community.
Feedlots are a necessary part of agriculture to provide cheap food, he said. Americans also do not want chicken from Brazil and beef from Argentina, he said.
During discussion among commission members after the hearing was closed, Chairman Richard Wolf took issue with Trom Eayrs comments regarding the ethics of feedlot owners sitting on the commission.
“We also own houses” he said, “and we vote on building houses on three acre.” Should people who own houses in the county not vote on those requests, he said.
In the end, the commission members voted 6-1 to approve the changes with Commissioner Darren Durst casting the lone no vote.

Sign up for News Alerts

Subscribe to news updates