Bio Wood Processing, LLC, Relator v. Rice County Board of Commissioners, A15-961

Bio Wood Processing operates a wood-recycling facility in Rice County; its business is a conditional use in an urban-reserve zoning district.
Bio Wood held a 2011 CUP with daytime grinding hours; a 2013 amended CUP expanded grinding hours but limited overall operations to set daytime/evening hours.
In 2014 Bio Wood sought a second amended CUP to remove all hour restrictions; neighbors complained about noise, truck traffic, and dust.
The planning commission recommended denial and prepared seven written findings; the Rice County Board unanimously adopted the recommendation and denied the application.
This court previously reversed and remanded because the planning commission had not formally adopted findings on the record; on remand the planning commission adopted the prepared findings, the board again denied the CUP, and Bio Wood sought certiorari review.
Bio Wood challenged denial on due-process, arbitrariness/capriciousness, lack of evidentiary support for findings, and unequal treatment; the board moved to strike and Bio Wood moved to supplement the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural due process — reopening the record on remand	Bio Wood: remand delay and changed circumstances denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard; record should be reopened	Board: remand corrected a procedural defect only; original record was adequate and reopening was unnecessary	Court: No due-process violation; Bio Wood had full opportunity at original hearing, remand addressed procedural defect only
Arbitrary/capricious decisionmaking on remand	Bio Wood: board failed to engage in reasoned decisionmaking on remand and merely rubber-stamped findings	Board: remand did not require redoing analysis; board properly adopted planning commission findings based on prior record	Court: Denial was not arbitrary or capricious; board lawfully adopted prior findings and reached same conclusion on same facts
Findings unsupported by record	Bio Wood: factual findings (noise, incompatibility, past noncompliance, public health/safety) lacked evidentiary support	Board: transcript and record show planning commission considered those topics	Court: Findings are supported by the record and relate to zoning criteria for CUPs
Equal protection / disparate treatment	Bio Wood: similarly situated businesses were treated differently by imposing hours restrictions on Bio Wood	Board: other businesses were not shown to be similarly situated	Court: Bio Wood failed to show comparators were similarly situated; claim fails

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due-process "meaningful opportunity to be heard" balancing test)
Yang v. County of Carver, 660 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. App. 2003) (review standard for CUP decisions; applicant bears burden to show denial legally insufficient or without factual basis)
Bartheld v. County of Koochiching, 716 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. App. 2006) (grounds for reversing zoning denial where reasons are legally insufficient or lack factual basis)
Crystal Beach Bay Ass’n v. County of Koochiching, 243 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. 1976) (prima facie arbitrariness when board action lacks findings showing reasoned consideration)
Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988) (appellate courts must confine review to the record)
In re Livingood, 594 N.W.2d 889 (Minn. 1999) (appellate review of permit denials should confine to facts developed before the decisionmaker)
In re Block, 727 N.W.2d 166 (Minn. App. 2007) (striking materials not in the record below)
Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1979) (zoning ordinances must operate uniformly on those similarly situated)