Court Opinion

ID: 9515434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:56:41.629105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:29.469506
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
[¶ 16.] I agree with the majority opinion that we are bound by the language of the county’s ordinance, even if we recognize the “potential anomalous result” that could occur from the county’s separation requirement for animal feeding operations with animal waste facilities, but not for commercial feed lots. For the drafters of this ordinance to impose a two-mile separation from a residence to animal feeding operations with animal waste facilities makes sense when that operation exceeds 1,000 animal units.
[¶ 17.] For a commercial feedlot with 960 animal units to have no animal waste facilities and consequently, no residential separation requirement makes no sense. Therefore, I write specially to encourage the use of commonsense in drafting commercial feedlot ordinances in the future.