complies with applicable regulations must be approved as a matter of right. II. PTL also argues that the board of commissioners lacked legal authority to reject its application for preliminary-plat approval of a permissible land use on the basis that the preliminary plat failed to implement the goals and policies of the county’s comprehensive guide plan. We agree. Compatibility with the public’s health, safety, and general welfare of the local government’s comprehensive land-use plan is an appropriate consideration in approving an application for a conditional use. See Minn.Stat. § 394.22, subd. 7 (2002) (defining conditional use as use that may be allowed on finding that it conforms to county’s comprehensive plan); Hubbard Broad., Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757, 763 (Minn.1982) (<HOLDING>); SuperAmerica Group, 539 N.W.2d at 267
holding that city councils determination that proposed use was inconsistent with comprehensive plan justified denial of specialuse permit 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 refusal to zone in accordance with comprehensive plan is evidence that citys action was arbitrary holding that disability provision in comprehensive retirement plan constituted a welfare plan