Tillman Infrastructure LLC v. Stearns County
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-03634
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 26
In Tillman Infrastructure LLC v. Stearns County, Judge Tostrud granted summary judgment for the County, upholding its denial of a permit to build a new cell tower.
Telecommunications companies and their infrastructure partners seeking to build new cell towers in rural or agricultural areas subject to local zoning and comprehensive plan requirements, as well as local governments in the Eighth Circuit (which includes Minnesota) seeking to deny such applications based on rural character and existing infrastructure goals.
What happened
In Tillman Infrastructure LLC v. Stearns County (No. 25-cv-3634), Tillman Infrastructure contracted with Verizon to build a 325-foot telecommunications tower in a rural agricultural area of Stearns County, Minnesota. Stearns County denied Tillman's conditional use permit application, citing the proposal's failure to conform to goals in the County's 2040 Comprehensive Plan — specifically goals related to preserving rural character and making use of existing infrastructure. Tillman sued under federal telecommunications law and Minnesota state law, asking the court to reverse the denial and order the permit granted.
The County's written decision had significant problems: it listed four grounds for denial but directly contradicted itself on two of them, stating that the proposal both did and did not conform to a connectivity goal, and that it both was and was not compatible with the existing neighborhood. The court refused to credit those two contradictory grounds. However, the remaining two grounds — that the proposal failed to conform to the County's rural character goal and its goal of making use of existing infrastructure — were found to be clear enough to allow meaningful judicial review.
Judge Tostrud found that substantial evidence in the record supported both of the non-contradictory grounds for denial. Public testimony described how the tower would disrupt the rural and agricultural character of the area, and there was undisputed evidence that two other towers nearby were already providing adequate telecommunications service. Tillman's evidence showed only that co-locating on an existing tower was more expensive, not that existing service was inadequate. Applying the deferential standard required by both the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Minnesota state law, Judge Tostrud denied Tillman's motion for summary judgment and granted Stearns County's cross-motion for summary judgment.
The detailed version
- Tillman Infrastructure LLC v. Stearns County · No. 0:25-cv-03634
- Eric Tostrud
- Mar. 31, 2026
Background
Tillman Infrastructure LLC applied in September 2024 for a conditional use permit to build a 325-foot telecommunications tower (the "Tillman Tower") in Maine Prairie Township, an area of Stearns County, Minnesota zoned as an agricultural district. Tillman had contracted with Verizon Wireless to provide an alternative to Verizon's existing arrangement on a nearby tower (the "American Tower"), where Verizon was paying high rents. A representative from Tillman's business partner explained that the Tillman Tower would reduce Verizon's rent payments to below a third of current costs, and that AT&T sought to move to the Tillman Tower for the same reason.
The Stearns County Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 24, 2025. Members of the public and letter writers opposed the application, arguing the tower would disrupt the rural and agricultural character of the area, harm wildlife, depress property values, and was unnecessary given the existence of two nearby towers already providing adequate service. Tillman's attorney rebutted those concerns, noting a National Environmental Policy Act study would be conducted and that an expert report showed no adverse property value impact.
After the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 3 to 1 to deny the application, though the vote was confused — at least one member who opposed the tower may have misunderstood the meaning of his vote. On August 12, 2025, the Stearns County Board of Commissioners formally denied the application, adopting the Planning Commission's findings of fact.
The County's Written Findings
The Board's two-page decision listed four findings:
- The proposal was consistent with the relevant zoning ordinance provisions (Sections 4.8, 7.28, and 9.2.5).
- The proposal both did and did not conform to the Comprehensive Plan — it did not conform to Living Goal 2 or Connectivity Goals 2 and 4, but did conform to Connectivity Goal 2 (the same goal listed in both columns).
- The proposal was not compatible with the existing neighborhood because it was close to housing, and also was compatible because two other towers were nearby (a direct contradiction).
- The applicant demonstrated it could meet the technical standards of Section 7.28.
The relevant Comprehensive Plan goals were: Living Goal 2 — "Manage the impacts of growth and development on the County's rural character and natural resources"; Connectivity Goal 2 — "Coordinate infrastructure and service needs with development, and encourage development where the infrastructure and services are adequate to serve that growth"; and Connectivity Goal 4 — "Deploy fast and reliable internet technologies that are equitable, affordable, and take advantage of existing infrastructure assets."
Legal Standards
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) of the Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C. § 332) requires that a local government's denial of an application to place or construct wireless service facilities "shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." Under Supreme Court precedent (T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell), the locality must provide reasons that are sufficiently clear to permit meaningful judicial review. The reasons need not be elaborate or sophisticated. "Substantial evidence" means more than a scintilla — such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, but not necessarily a preponderance. Courts give significant deference to the local decision-maker. The party seeking to overturn the decision bears the burden of showing it is not supported by substantial evidence.
The substantive criteria for approving or denying an application come from state and local law, not from the federal Act itself. The Act's substantial evidence requirement is directed at whether the local authority's decision is consistent with applicable local zoning requirements.
Minnesota State Law
Under Minnesota law, ruling on a conditional use permit application is a quasi-judicial act reviewable by writ of certiorari (a form of appellate review). Courts assess (1) the legal sufficiency of the reasons given and (2) whether there is a factual basis for legally sufficient reasons. If reasons are legally insufficient or lack a factual basis, the decision is arbitrary and capricious. Courts defer to local decision-makers and reverse only where the decision has no rational basis. Ordinarily, denial is arbitrary if all standards in the ordinance have been met, but the Minnesota Supreme Court recognizes an exception where a proposal is incompatible with a municipal comprehensive plan — so long as the plan provisions cited are not unreasonably vague or subjective. The party seeking review bears the burden of showing the reasons are without factual support or legally insufficient. Not all reasons need to be legally sufficient; it is enough if at least some are.
Analysis
The Contradictory Grounds Are Disregarded
The court found that two of the four grounds for denial could not be credited because they were internally contradictory: the decision simultaneously stated the proposal did and did not conform to Connectivity Goal 2, and that it both was and was not compatible with the existing neighborhood. Although the court noted the obvious explanation — that different Planning Commission members reached different conclusions — the contradictory statements were not "clear enough to enable judicial review" under the City of Roswell standard and were therefore set aside.
The Two Remaining Grounds Are Legally Sufficient
The court found the remaining two grounds — non-conformity with Living Goal 2 (rural character) and Connectivity Goal 4 (existing infrastructure) — were stated clearly enough to permit meaningful judicial review, even though the decision merely recited the Comprehensive Plan language without citing specific record evidence. The court relied on Eighth Circuit precedent (NE Colorado Cellular and Sprint Spectrum) confirming that even terse, ordinance-parroting explanations can satisfy the federal "in writing" requirement, given that local boards are typically staffed by laypeople and Congress did not require detailed findings.
Under Minnesota law, those same provisions were found to be legally sufficient reasons because they were not unreasonably vague or subjective. The court analogized to Minnesota Supreme Court decisions in Barton Contracting Co. v. City of Afton and Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton, where broadly worded comprehensive plan goals — including preservation of rural character and protection of natural features — were found legally sufficient. The court rejected the argument that the County was required to provide written reasons in more than a conclusory fashion, finding that line of Minnesota Court of Appeals authority unpersuasive in the context of conditional use permit (rather than rezoning) decisions.
Substantial Evidence Supports Both Remaining Grounds
Living Goal 2 (rural character)
Tillman itself acknowledged the area was rural. Multiple members of the public testified or submitted letters stating the tower would disrupt the rural and agricultural character of the land, harm wildlife and the local ecosystem, and be visually incompatible with the area. Relying on NE Colorado Cellular and Sprint Spectrum, the court found that testimony from area residents about a tower being an eyesore and out of character with a rural neighborhood constitutes substantial evidence supporting the denial, provided the aesthetic concerns are grounded in the specifics of the case rather than being generic objections applicable to any tower.
Connectivity Goal 4 (existing infrastructure)
It was undisputed that two other towers existed nearby and provided adequate telecommunications service. Public statements at the hearing said there was no need for the tower and that existing capacity was sufficient. Tillman's own evidence showed only that co-locating on an existing tower was economically infeasible for Verizon and AT&T — not that existing service was technically inadequate. Tillman's representative could not say whether Verizon would maintain its equipment on the American Tower if the application were denied. The court found substantial evidence supported the County's conclusion that the proposal failed to take advantage of existing infrastructure assets.
Tillman's Counterarguments Rejected
Tillman argued that (1) reciting plan goals without citing evidence fails the § 332 standard; (2) the County impermissibly ignored competing evidence (expert reports, engineering narrative, letters from Verizon and AT&T); and (3) the County's conclusion was internally contradictory because the County found the proposal met Section 7.28 of the zoning ordinance, which includes a purpose of maximizing use of existing towers, while also finding it violated Connectivity Goal 4's similar purpose. The court rejected all three arguments. On (1), Eighth Circuit precedent allows terse, ordinance-parroting explanations. On (2), the Telecommunications Act does not require elaborate explanations, the County explicitly acknowledged ways in which the proposal conformed, and Tillman's evidence about economic infeasibility did not undermine the County's factual findings. On (3), Section 7.28 contains many technical specifications (guy wire placement, galvanized finishes, antenna height, etc.), and it is reasonable that a proposal could comply with those specifications while still failing to further the section's broader purpose of maximizing use of existing infrastructure.
The court also rejected Tillman's argument that the County relied impermissibly on bare public opposition. The court found the County relied not on mere neighborhood opposition but on concrete evidence — specific testimony about rural character and the existence of nearby adequate infrastructure — which Minnesota law permits local authorities to consider.
Disposition
Tillman Infrastructure LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Administrative Record was denied. Stearns County's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment was granted. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 26-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.