Tillman Infrastructure LLC v. Stearns County

Background

Plaintiff Tillman Infrastructure LLC contracted with Verizon Wireless to build a new 325-foot telecommunications tower (the "Tillman Tower") on 103rd Avenue in Maine Prairie Township, an agriculturally zoned area of Stearns County, Minnesota. Verizon was already operating from a nearby tower (the "American Tower") located 0.6 miles away but sought the new tower primarily to reduce its rental costs to less than one-third of current payments. AT&T, also operating from the American Tower, similarly expressed interest in relocating to the Tillman Tower for cost reasons.

Tillman applied for a conditional use permit in September 2024 under Stearns County Land Use and Zoning Ordinance No. 439, which governs telecommunications towers and conditional use permits generally. The County's 2040 Comprehensive Plan also set out relevant goals, including Living Goal 2 (managing impacts on the County's rural character and natural resources), Connectivity Goal 2 (coordinating infrastructure with development), and Connectivity Goal 4 (deploying internet technologies that take advantage of existing infrastructure assets).

Procedural History

The Stearns County Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 24, 2025. Members of the public opposed the application, citing the tower's incompatibility with the rural and agricultural character of the area, potential wildlife disruption, the adequacy of existing nearby towers, and potential property value impacts. Tillman's representatives rebutted these concerns and submitted expert materials. The Planning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend denial, though the opinion notes some confusion among members about the effect of their votes. The County Board of Commissioners formally denied the application on August 12, 2025, adopting the Planning Commission's findings of fact in a two-page written decision.

The written denial listed four findings: (1) the proposal conformed to applicable zoning ordinances (Sections 4.8, 7.28, and 9.2.5); (2) the proposal both did and did not conform to the Comprehensive Plan — it did not conform to Living Goal 2 and Connectivity Goals 2 and 4, but it did conform to Connectivity Goal 2 (a direct self-contradiction); (3) the proposal was both incompatible with the existing neighborhood (because it was close to housing) and compatible with it (because two other towers were nearby) — another direct self-contradiction; and (4) the applicant demonstrated it could meet the technical standards of Section 7.28.

Tillman filed suit in September 2025 raising claims under Section 332(c)(7) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and seeking state-law review by writ of certiorari (a form of court review of a government decision). Both parties moved for summary judgment on the administrative record.

Legal Standards

Federal Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7))

The Telecommunications Act preserves local zoning authority over cell tower siting but imposes limits. When a locality denies a tower application, the denial must be "in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." The Supreme Court has clarified that the locality must provide reasons that are "sufficiently clear" to permit meaningful judicial review, though those reasons need not be elaborate or sophisticated. The substantial evidence standard — borrowed from administrative law — requires more than a mere scintilla of evidence but does not require a preponderance. Courts give significant deference to local decision-makers, and the burden is on the applicant to show the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The substantive criteria come from state and local law, not the Telecommunications Act itself.

Minnesota State Law

Under Minnesota law, a conditional use permit denial is a quasi-judicial act reviewed for whether it is arbitrary and capricious. Courts assess (1) whether the stated reasons are legally sufficient, and (2) whether those reasons have a factual basis in the record. Denial is ordinarily arbitrary if all ordinance standards have been met. However, Minnesota courts recognize an exception: a locality may deny a permit that complies with the zoning code if the proposal is incompatible with the municipality's comprehensive plan, provided that the plan language is not unreasonably vague or subjective. The burden is on the applicant to show that the reasons are either factually unsupported or legally insufficient, and not all stated reasons need be sufficient — it is enough if at least one valid reason is supported.

Analysis

Contradictory Grounds Disregarded

The court declined to credit two of the four stated grounds for denial because they were internally contradictory: the decision stated both that the proposal conformed and did not conform to Connectivity Goal 2, and both that the proposal was and was not compatible with the existing neighborhood. The court acknowledged the obvious explanation — that different Planning Commission members reached different conclusions — but held that this context did not rescue the contradictory findings because the record was not "clear enough to enable judicial review" under the Supreme Court's standard in T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell.

Federal Claim: Substantial Evidence Supports Denial

The court found the remaining two grounds — non-conformity with Living Goal 2 (rural character) and Connectivity Goal 4 (existing infrastructure) — to be stated clearly enough to enable judicial review, consistent with Eighth Circuit precedent permitting even terse explanations that largely repeat ordinance or plan language.

On Living Goal 2, the court found substantial evidence in the record: public testimony that the tower would disrupt the agricultural and rural character of the area, harm wildlife, and be visually out of place. The court relied on Eighth Circuit precedent holding that specific testimony from residents about a tower being an "eyesore" or out of character with the neighborhood constitutes substantial evidence in the zoning context.

On Connectivity Goal 4, the court found substantial evidence in the undisputed presence of two existing nearby towers and public testimony that those towers already provided adequate service, that the proposal was more of a cost-cutting measure than a service necessity, and that Verizon would likely maintain its equipment on the existing tower if the application were denied. The court noted that Tillman's own evidence only showed economic infeasibility of co-location, not that existing service was inadequate.

The court rejected Tillman's argument that the County impermissibly ignored competing evidence, holding that the Telecommunications Act does not require localities — typically staffed by laypeople — to provide elaborate findings addressing all contrary evidence. The court also rejected Tillman's argument that the County contradicted itself by finding compliance with Section 7.28 (which includes a purpose of maximizing use of existing towers) while also finding non-conformity with Connectivity Goal 4, reasoning that a proposal can comply with the technical specifications in Section 7.28 while still failing to further one of that section's stated purposes.

State Law Claim: Not Arbitrary and Capricious

Because the County found that Tillman's proposal complied with all applicable zoning ordinances, the denial was permissible under Minnesota law only if nonconformity with the Comprehensive Plan constituted a legally sufficient reason. The court held that Living Goal 2 and Connectivity Goal 4, while broadly worded, were not unreasonably vague or subjective. It analogized to Minnesota Supreme Court decisions upholding denials based on comprehensive plan goals protecting rural character (Barton Contracting) and natural features (Hubbard Broadcasting), and noted that the Comprehensive Plan elaborated on the County's rural character vision and that the existing-infrastructure goal was rendered concrete by the undisputed presence of two nearby towers.

The court also rejected Tillman's argument that the denial rested improperly on mere public opposition. The court acknowledged that bare neighborhood opposition is not a legally sufficient reason to deny a conditional use permit under Minnesota law. However, the court found that the County relied not on the mere fact of public opposition but on the substantive, concrete content of public testimony — specifically, evidence about the tower's incompatibility with the rural character of the area and the adequacy of existing telecommunications infrastructure.

Outcome

Tillman Infrastructure LLC's motion for summary judgment was denied. Stearns County's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted. Judgment was entered in favor of Stearns County.