Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/08/2015

Home

December 10, 2014 I Volume 8 1 Issue 23 Zoning Bulletin The Hansons appealed the decision of the MPC to the Minnehaha County Commission (the "Commission"). Prior to the appeal hearing, County Commissioner Dick Kelly ("Kelly") toured another agronomy facility near Worthing, South Dakota. Kelly viewed the interior and exterior of the facility and received infolination on some of its safety features. At some time, Kelly was informed that EFC owned the Worth- ing facility. At the Commission hearing on the Hansons' appeal, Kelly disclosed that he had toured the Worthing facilityand that he was "impressed" by the safety measures in place. At the conclusion of the hearing, the com- missioners present voted unanimously in favor of upholding the MPC's decision to grant the permit to EFC. The Hansons appealed to circuit court. The Hansons argued that the MPC and Commission violated their right to due process of law in two ways: First, the Hansons alleged that the Minnehaha County Zoning Ordinances ("MCZO") did not provide adequate criteria upon which to base a decision to grant a conditional use permit in this case. Therefore, they argued that the MPC's decision to grant EFC a conditional use permit was arbitrary and capricious and constituted a violation of the Hansons' constitutional right to due process of law. Second, the Hansons alleged that in light of Kelly's ex parte communications with EFC, Kelly's subsequent participation in their appeal to the Commis- sion denied them a fair and impartial hearing, violating the Hansons' right to due process. The circuit court found that the MCZO satisfied the state statutory requirements for criteria evaluation of conditional uses. (SDCL 11-2- 17.3.) The circuit court also found that Kelly's tour of the Worthing Fa- cility constituted ex parte communication that disqualified his vote. However, the circuit court found no evidence of influence in the other three votes and, therefore, left the Commission's decision intact. The Hansons appealed, raising the same arguments. DECISION: Judgment of circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court of South Dakota held that the Hansons' constitu- tional due process arguments failed. The court upheld the grant of EFC's conditional use permit. The court first concluded that the Hansons' failed to support their contention that the MCZO was inherently arbitrary and lacked statuto- rily required criteria for evaluating conditional uses. State statutory law, SDCL 11-2-17.3, only required counties to establish "criteria for evaluating each conditional use." Here, the court found that the MCZO provided nine criteria applicable to EFC's proposed conditional use. Moreover, the court noted that zoning law is afforded a presumption of constitutionality, and will only be found arbitrary and unconstitutional when it has "no substantial relations to the public health, safety, morals, 10 © 2014 Thomson Reuters