the board’s decision making when reviewing a specific proposal. The zoning provisions at issue here permit the use of agricultural land for single-family dwellings at a maximum density of one dwelling per five-acre lot. See Chisago County, Minn., Zoning Ordinance § 5.06(B)(10). The standards established in the zoning ordinance are conclusive until the board rezones the district or amends the zoning ordinance through proper legislative channels. See Chanhassen Estates, 342 N.W.2d at 340. Third, even if the comprehensive guide plan had the force of law, its provisions are “intended to be general in nature” and are thus legally insufficient as a basis for denying an application for preliminary-plat approval. See Comprehensive Guide Plan, at ii; C.R. Invs., Inc., 304 N.W.2d at 327-28 (<HOLDING>). The comprehensive guide plan in this ease
holding that provision in comprehensive plan requiring developer to demonstrate that proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plans general intent and purpose was unreasonably vague subjective and did not furnish ground for denial of specialuse permit holding that reliance on comprehensive plan as basis for denying conditionaluse permit was improper where zoning ordinance did not list compliance with comprehensive plan as basis for denial holding that city councils determination that proposed use was inconsistent with comprehensive plan justified denial of specialuse permit holding that disability provision in comprehensive retirement plan constituted a welfare plan recognizing prior decision holding that adoption of and amendments to local comprehensive plans are legislative acts and holding that smallscale development amendments to local comprehensive plans are also legislative acts