Hanson v. Minnehaha County Commission, 2014 SD 75

Eastern Farmers Cooperative (EFC) sought a conditional use permit to build a 60‑acre agronomy facility near Colton, SD for storage, distribution, and sale of farm products including anhydrous ammonia.
The site is in A-1 Agricultural zoning; the Planning Commission approved the permit with ten conditions, which the Hansons then appealed to the County Commission.
During the appeal, Commissioner Dick Kelly toured a Worthing EFC facility, receiving safety information; it is disputed whether he knew the Worthing plant was operated by EFC.
The County Commission, with four members present (one absent), unanimously upheld the Planning Commission’s decision after hearing testimony from both sides.
The Hansons sought de novo review in circuit court; the circuit court found the Comprehensive Plan satisfied SDCL 11-2-17.3 and that Kelly’s tour was ex parte, but upheld the County Commission’s decision with others voting as before.
The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding the MCZO criteria were sufficient and that removing Kelly’s vote remedied due process concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MCZO criteria for conditional uses are constitutionally sufficient	Hansons—MCZO arts. 3.04, 19.01 lack concrete evaluation criteria.	County ordinances provide nine criteria including health, safety, welfare, and plan-specific criteria.	MCZO criteria are constitutionally adequate.
Whether Commissioner Kelly’s pre‑hearing tour created due process violations	Kelly’s ex parte tour biased the proceeding and required disqualification.	No substantial bias; other commissioners weighed evidence independently.	Remedy of invalidating Kelly’s vote sufficed; proceeding upheld with remaining votes.

City of Brookings v. Winker, 1996 S.D. 129, 554 N.W.2d 827 (S.D. 1996) (presumption of constitutionality for zoning ordinances; need facts for arbitrariness)
Schafer v. Deuel Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 2006 S.D. 106, 725 N.W.2d 241 (S.D. 2006) (zoning decisions under police power must relate to public health, safety, welfare)
Parris v. City of Rapid City, 2013 S.D. 51, 834 N.W.2d 850 (S.D. 2013) (reaffirmed standards for evaluating conditional uses under MCZO)
In re Conditional Use Permit Denied to Meier, 2000 S.D. 80, 613 N.W.2d 523 (S.D. 2000) (fixed standards vs. general criteria under pre‑2004 law)
Kirschenman v. Hutchinson County Bd. of Comm’rs, 2003 S.D. 4, 656 N.W.2d 330 (S.D. 2003) (discussed referendum effects and legislative vs administrative action)
Bechen v. Moody Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 2005 S.D. 93, 703 N.W.2d 662 (S.D. 2005) (overruled related pre‑2004 reasoning; clarifies standards for conditional uses)
Armstrong v. Turner Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 2009 S.D. 81, 772 N.W.2d 643 (S.D. 2009) (disqualification and remedy considerations when bias is present)
Stofferahn v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 461 N.W.2d 129 (S.D. 1990) (due process standards for administrative hearings)
United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1941) (principle of objective adjudicatory fairness; bias concerns)
City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enters., 426 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1976) (substantial relation of zoning to public welfare; due process)