Circuit Judge Ann Hoffman sides with nearby homeowners, cites "irregular authority" in Sioux Falls City Council's approval despite not complying with ordinances and strategic plan.
A judge ruled in favor of rural residents and against the Sioux Falls City Council in a case that questioned the validity of a conditional use permit issued for the new Smithfield Foods pork processing plant.
The project, announced in February, would replace a 100-year-old packing plant in downtown Sioux Falls with a new facility in the northwest corner of the city in Foundation Park.
In April, more than 20 nearby homeowners who live near the new site in rural Crooks filed a petition for writ of certiorari. The subject of the case was a conditional use permit (CUP) that would allow Smithfield to build closer than 1,000 feet to residential land, which is the minimum requirement for sites zoned for heavy industrial facilities.
The ruling, filed Thursday in Minnehaha Circuit Court, came after a hearing in August in which Circuit Judge Ann Hoffman took the case under advisement for decision at a later date but allowed both parties to submit additional briefs.
Get free, fact-based South Dakota news and information in a weekday email. No spam. Cancel any time.
Hoffman granted the plaintiffs' petition, which nullifies the City Council's decision to grant the permit to Smithfield. To grant a writ of certiorari, plaintiffs must prove that the city acted with “irregular authority” or outside of its jurisdiction.
The conditional use permit is now voided and "remanded and reversed" to the Sioux Falls City Council, which will have to reconsider Smithfield's application.
“You feel like a David and Goliath thing, but you can win. There is hope in fighting the huge bureaucracy,” Pattie Guthrie, a plaintiff in the case, told News Watch Friday. “Does it mean that Smithfield won’t come here? No, it doesn't say that. Is it as much as we had hoped for? No, but it’s a start.”
Attorneys from both parties did not immediately respond to a request Friday for comment.
What's in the ruling
Hoffman ruled that the City Council failed to comply with the city's own ordinances as well as the Sioux Falls 2050 strategic plan in approving the CUP.
She noted that Smithfield's permit application for the site was only a single-page document and did not fulfill several city requirements for conditional use permit approval.
That included a mandatory “neighborhood meeting to gain input about methods to transition the business from the adjacent residential home,” building designs that display measures to prevent water issues and a report from the fire department that outlined issues or concerns with the site.
"For fire, water, zoning, light and power, the Staff Report simply stated, 'Provided a review of all available information and did not have any concerns or comments to add.' However, there is no 'report from the fire department regarding any building standards that must be met or other concerns the fire department has regarding the use,'" Hoffman wrote.
Molly Wetsch
Nor was there a "report from the city water and water reclamation departments to determine the impact of the development on city utilities" or "a site management plan outlining litter, odor, and product control measures to be approved by the planning and health departments."
“The 2050 Plan states that a heavy industrial use next to a residential use is highly incompatible and that "(in) general, proposed use with this level of conflict should not be permitted," Hoffman wrote.
"This is not a complete ban on a heavy industrial use being next to a residential use. The incompatibility of the two uses requires mitigation to minimize the impact of a heavy industrial use upon a residential use."
That mitigation was not outlined because the City Council didn't require the minimum requirements of both city zoning ordinances and the 2050 Shape Sioux Falls Comprehensive Plan in approving the conditional use permit, Hoffman wrote.
"The City Council contends that the Staff Report prepared for the Planning Commission evaluated the Smithfield site proposal, consolidated the comments of the various agencies charged with implementing the comprehensive plan, weighed the impact on traffic and nearby uses, and concluded the Smithfield facility met the 2050 Plan."
Molly Wetsch
Finally, the homeowners also argued that their due process rights were violated on grounds the City Council was biased.
Hoffman rejected that.
"The Court finds that Petitioners have failed to show that there was a direct pecuniary (financial) interest, actual bias, or a serious risk of actual bias such that their due process rights were violated," she wrote.
In an August hearing, the attorney for the plaintiffs, Steve Haugaard, called the approval of the conditional use permit an "injustice."
James Moore, an attorney for the city, said during the same hearing that the "lengthy proceedings" before the planning commission and City Council, as well as opportunity for "extensive public comment," should be considered sufficient consideration for legal standards.
South Dakota News Watch is an independent nonprofit. Read, subscribe for free and donate at sdnewswatch.org. Contact reporter/Report for America corps member Molly Wetsch: 605-531-7382/molly.wetsch@sdnewswatch.org.
