Grand Prairie Agriculture, LLP, v. Pelican Township Board of Supervisors,
No. 20200226
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
FEBRUARY 18, 2021
2021 ND 29
Tufte, Justice
Appeal from the District Court of Ramsey County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Lonnie Olson, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Opinion of the Court by Tufte, Justice.
Tyler J. Leverington, West Fargo, North Dakota, for petitioner and appellant.
Scott W. Carlson, St. Paul, Minnesota, for respondent and appellee.
Grand Prairie Agriculture v. Pelican Township Board of Supervisors
No. 20200226
[¶1] Grand Prairie Agriculture, LLP, appeals from a district court order affirming the decision of the Pelican Township Board of Supervisors denying Grand Prairie‘s petition for approval of the site of a proposed animal feeding operation (“AFO“). We conclude the Township misinterpreted and misapplied the law in applying setback requirements. We reverse the
I
[¶2] Grand Prairie petitioned the Township to determine whether the proposed AFO would comply with township zoning regulations. The petition stated the AFO would be a swine operation with a maximum scope of 999.6 animal units.
[¶3] After considering the petition at a meeting, the Township denied Grand Prairie‘s petition. The Township explained it “determined that the facility did not comply with the Pelican Township zoning regulations nor the
[¶4] Grand Prairie appealed the Township‘s decision to the district court, arguing the denial due to the setback from the campground is precluded by state law and the Township misinterpreted or misapplied the law. The district court affirmed the Township‘s decision.
II
[¶5] Grand Prairie argues the Township erred by denying its petition for approval of the proposed AFO site. It argues the Township misinterpreted and misapplied the law by using the campground to measure the setbacks.
[¶6] In an appeal from the decision of a local governing body, the governing body‘s decision will be affirmed unless it acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably, or there is not substantial evidence supporting the decision. See Dahm v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm‘rs, 2013 ND 241, ¶ 8, 841 N.W.2d 416. Under
[¶7] Our primary purpose in interpreting a statute is to determine the legislative intent, and we start with the plain language of the statute and give each word of the statute its ordinary meaning. City of Fargo v. Hofer, 2020 ND 252, ¶ 8, 952 N.W.2d 58. We give words their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, unless they are specifically defined or a contrary intention plainly appears.
[¶8]
[T]he board of township supervisors may establish one or more zoning districts and within such districts may, subject to the provisions of . . . section 58-03-11.1, regulate and restrict the use of buildings and structures, . . . and the location and use of . . . land for trade, industry, residence, or other purposes. All such regulations and restrictions must be uniform throughout each district, but the regulations and restrictions in one district may differ from those in other districts.
[¶9] Under
[¶10] Pelican Township‘s zoning ordinance states, “To effectively carry out the provisions of these regulations, the land covered by the jurisdiction of these regulations (i.e., Pelican Township) shall be zoned agricultural.” Pelican Township Zoning Ordinance C.1.1. The entire township, including the land the campground was located on, was zoned agricultural under the Township‘s zoning ordinances. Township ordinances allowed for recreational uses of property in a district zoned for agriculture, stating, “Hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities are permitted without restriction, provided that all laws of traffic, safety, access, game management, and regulations of this ordinance are followed.” Pelican Township Ordinance E.1.2.6.
[¶11] Pelican Township also enacted ordinances regulating AFOs, including regulating the location of an AFO based on the size of the operation through
the use of setback provisions. The ordinance states the owner of an AFO with at least 300 but no more than 1,000 animal units shall locate the site of the operation 3/4 of a mile from “existing residences, businesses, churches, schools, and public parks as well as areas of property that are zoned residential, recreational, or commercial.” Pelican Township Zoning Ordinance F.1.3.1.
[¶12] The Township denied Grand Prairie‘s petition, concluding the proposed AFO did not comply with township zoning regulations or statutory setback provisions under state law. The Township stated township ordinances required 3/4 mile setbacks for the proposed AFO, state statutory law required 1/2 mile setbacks, and the proposed AFO was located 1340 feet from the Kenner Campground. The Township determined Kenner Campground was located within the setback distance required under either the township ordinances or the statutory setback provisions and therefore the petition should be denied.
[¶13] Grand Prairie argues
[¶14]
[¶15] In this case, the Township used the campground to measure the setback distance for the proposed AFO. The campground did not include an occupied residence or a building used for nonfarm or nonranch purposes. It also was not
located on land zoned for residential, recreational, or commercial purposes. All of the land in the township was zoned for agriculture. Township ordinances specify the purpose of an agricultural zoning district, stating, “The Agricultural District is established as a district in which the predominant use of the land is for general agricultural uses” and the general purpose of the ordinance was “[t]o encourage the continued use of land for agricultural uses . . . [and] [t]o discourage scattered commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural uses of the land which would interfere with an integrated and efficient development of the land.” Pelican Township Ordinance E.1.1. The campground was located on land in an agricultural zoning district.
[¶16] Although Township ordinances permitted recreational uses of land zoned for agriculture, the land was not zoned for recreational purposes.
[¶17] The campground was not located on land zoned for recreational purposes. None of the conditions under
III
[¶18] We have considered the parties’ remaining issues and arguments and conclude they are either unnecessary to our decision or are without merit. Having concluded the Township misinterpreted and misapplied the law, we
reverse the district court‘s order and the Township‘s decision to deny Grand Prairie‘s petition. We remand to the Township to reconsider Grand
[¶19] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte