The Ward County Planning Commission voted Tuesday, June 18, to recommend the county commission deny a permit for a feedlot in Surrey Township that had been the subject of a law enforcement investigation.

State prosecutors have filed charges in North Central District Court against the feedlot operator for allegedly improperly disposing of hundreds of dead cattle. Nathan Smith, Sawyer, has been charged with 479 infractions of improper disposal of animal carcass but has previously informed The Minot Daily News that the deceased cattle were properly disposed of and that he intends to vigorously defend himself.

The planning commission’s decision regarding a conditional use permit came due to uncertainties around the application and the operator’s intentions. No representative of the applicant, Ansuz, LLC of Minot, or project owner, Smith Family Land Co., appeared at Tuesday’s meeting to address the matter. The application was signed for Ansuz by Matthew Tharaldson.

The application originally proposed 11,750 animal units on more than 550 acres.

Ward County Planning and Zoning Administrator Beth Pietsch said other correspondence listed differing numbers of 6,500 animal units and 2,000 animal units. The adjustment to 2,000 units on 170 acres would require a half mile setback from residences rather than the mile setback based on the original numbers.

“There still seems to be residences in that vicinity, so that seems that’s a concern,” Pietsch said. “There’s a private well that is in close proximity.”

Along with the planning department’s concerns over setbacks and legal description discrepancies on the application, the Ward County Water Resources Board had concerns regarding a creek north of the site that appears to be inside the setback.

Also, the highway department noted concerns about inadequate mapping information regarding the site and a 66-foot statutory right of way on a section line that has been fenced and cattle have been allowed to cross.

The Ward County Rural Development Site Analysis, conducted by Souris Basin Planning Council in 2025 to identify suitable sites for animal feeding operations, shows the application site would not have good potential for a feedlot. Surrey Township recommended the application be denied.

A compressed timeline mandated by the county for submitting an application didn’t allow for submission of a complete application, according to a May 15 letter to the planning commission from the Bowman and Brooke law firm on behalf of Nathan Smith, Smith Farms, JERA Land and Cattle General Partnership and related entities. The letter stated a complete application would be provided to the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality by June 15. An animal feeding operation permit application also is before the NDDEQ.

The letter sought to clarify the history of the Surrey feedlot.

“The Surrey Feed Lot has been operating as a normal wintering operation for the last couple of years, which resulted in calving as intended. During the summer months, my clients planted crops on the property, underscoring its nature as a wintering operation, which did not require a Conditional Use Permit under the then-applicable Surrey Township ordinances. While my clients contemplated expanding the wintering operation into an animal feeding operation over time, the actual increase in the number of animals did not take place until relatively recently,” the letter stated.

“My clients have at all times attempted to work in good faith with the relevant regulators and were in compliance with Surrey Township’s zoning ordinance and CUP requirements,” it continued. “When Ward County assumed zoning jurisdiction within Surrey Township in July 2025, my clients were not immediately informed of the change in jurisdiction, which transformed the zoning requirements and accelerated my clients’ timeline for coming into compliance with the newly-applicable zoning requirements. My clients fully intend to ensure compliance with Ward County Zoning Ordinance No. 8 and the Administrative Code.”

The planning commission voted unanimously for denial based on conflicting information on legal descriptions, conflicting numbers of animals to be housed, unmet odor setbacks and possible unmet water setback from a private well.