MINUTES OF THE MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2012
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – 7:00 PM
The Kandiyohi County Planning Commission met on Monday, April 9, 2012 at 7:00 PM in the
Commissioners Room at the Kandiyohi County Health & Human Services Building located at 2200 – 23rd
St NE, Willmar, Minnesota. Members present are John Dean, Doug Hanson, Ed Huseby, Harlan Madsen,
Gwynne Anderson, and Jerome Bengston. Also present was Zoning Administrator, Gary Geer, &
Assistant Zoning Administrator Eric Van Dyken.
Chair Huseby opened the meeting at 7:00 PM.
Minutes of the previous hearing was approved as mailed.
In old business the application of Jerome Taatjes had been postponed from the March 12 hearing. Part
NE ¼, Section 7, Township 117, Range 36, Holland Twp. Proposes expansion of a feedlot in an A-1 Ag
Preservation District. Huseby introduced the matter by making note of the previous meeting where a vote
on a motion to recommend approval was postponed. Geer summarized the questions for which the
commission sought additional information and the answers provided in the additional staff report.
Madsen noted that he stands corrected in his previous understanding of whether or not a new CUP
supersedes previous CUP(s). Mark Taatjes was present representing the applicant. Taatjes explained the
need and purpose for the proposal as being for better air filtration for herd health. Madsen stated that he
believes the proposal makes sense. Dean expressed thanks for the information in the staff report, noting
that he was satisfied with the answers. Geer noted that staff recommends approval. Chair Huseby called
for a vote on the previous motion by Madsen, second by Dean to recommend approval of the request with
the following conditions and findings as presented by staff:
Conditions
1. Dead animals to be disposed of by rendering, composting, or other methods as approved by the
Minnesota Board of Animal Health, and be kept out of sight.
2. The owner shall follow all MPCA requirements regarding proper manure management planning,
manure application, and record keeping.
3. All applications of liquid manure shall be injected or incorporated into the soil within thirty
seconds of application.
Findings
1. The Planning Commission finds that the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted and will
not substantially diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity. The Planning
Commission bases this finding on the information and testimony submitted by the applicant
concerning the nature of the operation, and the written review of the County Feedlot Officer. The
Planning Commission finds that there has been no testimony or evidence entered into the record
that leads them to conclude there will be a significant impact on property enjoyment or valuation.
1
2. The Planning Commission finds that establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding vacant land for uses
predominant in the area. The Planning Commission bases this finding on the fact that the
surrounding vacant land is agricultural in nature and the feedlot will not impede continuing
agricultural uses.
3. The Planning Commission finds that adequate utilities, access roads drainage, off street parking
and loading space and other necessary facilities have been provided or will be provided. The
Planning Commission notes that the site is open in nature and has more than adequate space to
serve the parking and loading needs of the use without impacting traffic or safety.
4. The Planning Commission finds that adequate measures have been taken or will be taken to
prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will
constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no
disturbance to neighboring properties will result. The Planning Commission notes that the dust,
noise, and lights associated with the use will not be unlike normally encountered in agricultural
areas for uses allowed in agricultural areas, and therefore cannot be considered to constitute a
nuisance or disturbance. The Planning Commission notes that the proposed feedlot meets the
required setback from neighboring residences. The Planning Commission notes that nothing in
the letter from the County Feedlot Officer indicates a concern that the feedlot will not be able to
meet state nuisance or hydrogen sulfide standards. The Planning Commission asserts that no
studies or evidential statements were introduced into the record that lead them to believe that the
proposed use will by its very nature constitute a nuisance.
5. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is allowed with a conditional use permit in
the A-1 zoning district under Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5, Section 5-4 entitled “conditional uses”.
6. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is in harmony with the goals and objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission notes that the Comprehensive Plan is supportive of
agriculture as an important part of the county’s economic makeup. The Comprehensive Plan also
states “agricultural activities are an important part of Kandiyohi County’s economy” (ref. Chapter
6, Page 4) and “feedlots are a necessary and important component to the agriculture economy”
(ref. Chapter 6, Page 10).
7. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use has the ability to meet the standards of the
Zoning Ordinance. The Commission notes that zoning staff review of the proposal found no
violations of the Zoning Ordinance.
8. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use will not have significant negative impacts
on groundwater, surface water, or air quality if operated according to all applicable Federal, State,
and County regulations, including the conditions placed on the permit. The Commission notes
that the letter of review from the County Feedlot Officer identifies no environmental hazards. The
Commission also notes that the framework of Federal, State, and County regulations for feedlots
provides comprehensive environmental protection.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends the County Board of Commissioners approve the
application with conditions as stated herein. Motion carried.
2
A hearing was held on the application of Carlson Dairy, LLP, West ½ of SW ¼, Section 28, Township
120, Range 36, Mamre Township. (4951 – 120th St NW) Applicant proposes expansion of a feedlot in an
A-1 Agricultural Preservation District from current dairy operation of 900 cows (1260 animal units) to
1600 cows (2240 animal units). Propose to construct one 180’ x 415’ total confinement barn and a 24’ x
150’ addition to existing barn. This feedlot currently consists of barns 108’x395’, 112’ x 395’; and
112’x200’ and a holding pen 44’x72’; and earthen basins of 192’x596’x10’; 284’x500’x10’;
118’x735’x10’; 118’x735’x10’; 262’x475’x12’ and 125’x550’x12’ in addition to a 25’x398’ concrete
sand lane. Animal waste will be land spread in accordance to manure management plan. Scott Thaden of
Anez Consulting was present representing the applicants. Thaden noted that the applicants have planned
for this new barn and expansion under a previous expansion. Thaden commented on the flow of manure
through the various manure storage areas and noted that some manure ownership will be transferred.
Thaden commented that the MPCA has visited the site in anticipation of issuing a permit. Thaden stated
that some liquid manure will be applied on alfalfa in the summer months. Gary Refsland, City of
Pennock resident, stated that he is opposed to the project, noting that he feels that applicants should be
made to fix what they have. Refsland stated that he is concerned about odor in Pennock, and that he is
also concerned about the number of cattle in the area. Huseby questioned if there have been complaints
about the odor from the public. Geer stated that there have been no odor complaints other than a
previous conversation he had with Mr. Refsland. Thaden noted that there have been no odor complaints
logged at MPCA and further noted that air emissions and odor management plans are needed for the
MPCA permitting process. Thaden commented that hydrogen sulfide is the only regulated emission and
that hydrogen sulfide rates are typically not a problem on dairies because of the nature of the waste.
Refsland stated that he thinks that the use of sand bedding is causing the odor that he smells. Madsen
stated that he believes that language should be included in the permit conditions to allow surface
application on alfalfa/grass ground. Thaden suggested that the condition requiring incorporation of liquid
manure could be worded to except application of manure on forage crops during the growing season.
Motion by Madsen, second by Bengston to recommend approval of the request with the following
conditions and findings:
Conditions
1. Dead animals to be disposed of by rendering, composting, or other methods as approved by the
Minnesota Board of Animal Health, and be kept out of sight.
2. The owner shall follow all MPCA requirements regarding proper manure management planning,
manure application, and record keeping.
3. All applications of liquid manure shall be injected or incorporated into the soil within thirty
seconds of application, unless applied on forage crops during the growing season.
Findings
1. The Planning Commission finds that the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted and will
not substantially diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity. The Planning
Commission bases this finding on the information and testimony submitted by the applicant
concerning the nature of the operation, and the written review of the County Feedlot Officer. The
Planning Commission finds that there has been no testimony or evidence entered into the record
that leads them to conclude there will be a significant impact on property enjoyment or valuation.
3
2. The Planning Commission finds that establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding vacant land for uses
predominant in the area. The Planning Commission bases this finding on the fact that the
surrounding vacant land is agricultural in nature and the feedlot will not impede continuing
agricultural uses.
3. The Planning Commission finds that adequate utilities, access roads drainage, off street parking
and loading space and other necessary facilities have been provided or will be provided. The
Planning Commission notes that the site is open in nature and has more than adequate space to
serve the parking and loading needs of the use without impacting traffic or safety.
4. The Planning Commission finds that adequate measures have been taken or will be taken to
prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will
constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no
disturbance to neighboring properties will result. The Planning Commission notes that the dust,
noise, and lights associated with the use will not be unlike normally encountered in agricultural
areas for uses allowed in agricultural areas, and therefore cannot be considered to constitute a
nuisance or disturbance. The Planning Commission notes that the proposed feedlot meets the
required setback from neighboring residences. The Planning Commission notes that nothing in
the letter from the County Feedlot Officer indicates a concern that the feedlot will not be able to
meet state nuisance or hydrogen sulfide standards. The Planning Commission asserts that no
studies or evidential statements were introduced into the record that lead them to believe that the
proposed use will by its very nature constitute a nuisance.
5. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is allowed with a conditional use permit in
the A-1 zoning district under Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5, Section 5-4 entitled “conditional uses”.
6. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is in harmony with the goals and objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission notes that the Comprehensive Plan is supportive of
agriculture as an important part of the county’s economic makeup. The Comprehensive Plan
states that land in the A-1 (Agricultural Preservation) District “needs to be preserved and protected
for agricultural activities (including high-intensity livestock production) from completing nonagricultural uses” (ref. Chapter 3, Page 1). The Comprehensive Plan also states “agricultural
activities are an important part of Kandiyohi County’s economy” (ref. Chapter 6, Page 4) and
“feedlots are a necessary and important component to the agriculture economy” (ref. Chapter 6,
Page 10).
7. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use has the ability to meet the standards of the
Zoning Ordinance. The Commission notes that zoning staff review of the proposal found no
violations of the Zoning Ordinance.
8. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use will not have significant negative impacts
on groundwater, surface water, or air quality if operated according to all applicable Federal, State,
and County regulations, including the conditions placed on the permit. The Commission notes
that the letter of review from the County Feedlot Officer identifies no environmental hazards. The
Commission also notes that the framework of Federal, State, and County regulations for feedlots
provides comprehensive environmental protection.
4
Bengston stated that it looks like the applicants are running a tight ship and that from his observations
odor does not seem to be an issue. Bengston noted that there could be some additional odor at times when
manure is applied on alfalfa. Huseby noted that the underlying zoning district is the A-1 (Agricultural
Preservation) District where there will be some odor and dust that occur.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends the County Board of Commissioners approve the
request with conditions as stated here. Motion carried.
There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM.
5