(state attorney general claimed that defendant's regulations of intensive animal agriculture were preempted by state law; regulation at issue regulated land uses involving "intensive animal agriculture" and applies to larger-scale operations and CAFOs; ordinance at issue required landowner to satisfy bond or insurance requirement, setback requirements and minimum lot size and adopts state Nutrient Management act (NMA); court determined that ordinance not preempted by NMA due to manner in which issue pleaded; site-plan requirement of ordinance did not violate NMA due to no conflict; ordinance did violate NMA as to requirement of odor management plan because it was in excess of NMA requirements; set-back requirements invalidated as more restrictive than NMA; water management portion of ordinance invalidated as conflicting with state Water Resources Planning Act; court could not determine if ordinance preempted by state Ag Area Security Law for lack of present application; ordinance did not violate state right-to-farm law because ordinance simply defines permissible land uses while the right-to-farm law would bar defendnat from declaring certain farming operations a nuisance).