Holborn v. Deuel Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 955 N.W.2d 363

Background

Deuel County amended its zoning ordinance to increase setback requirements for wind energy systems (WES). Deuel Harvest applied for special exception permits (SEPs) to build two WES projects (up to 150 and 100 turbines).
The Deuel County Board of Adjustment (five members) held a public hearing and unanimously approved both SEPs (5–0).
Opposing residents (Appellees) sought certiorari review in circuit court, alleging several Board members had disqualifying interests or biases (prior lease/option agreements, payments, advocacy, family ties) and that the Board misinterpreted “business” for setback purposes (dispute involving a 480‑acre hunting operation).
The circuit court invalidated the votes of two members (DeBoer and Dahl) as disqualified and ultimately reversed the Board’s approval of the SEPs.
The Supreme Court reviewed due process standards (Caperton), SD statutes on conflicts (SDCL 6‑1‑17 and 6‑1‑21), the Board’s ordinance interpretation, and the circuit court’s evidentiary rulings; it reversed the disqualifications and reinstated the Board’s unanimous approval.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board members had disqualifying interest or bias under the Due Process Clause or SD statutes	Appellees: several members had disqualifying interests/bias (prior agreements, payments, advocacy, family/employer ties) warranting recusal	Deuel Harvest/Board: no direct pecuniary interest at time of vote; SDCL 6‑1‑17 requires direct pecuniary interest or 2/3 board vote; SDCL 6‑1‑21 presumes objectivity absent clear and convincing evidence	Court: Caperton due‑process standard not met; no direct pecuniary interest under SDCL 6‑1‑17; SDCL 6‑1‑21 presumption not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence; reversed disqualification of DeBoer and Dahl; affirmed no disqualification for Kanengieter and Brandt
Whether the Board misinterpreted “business” in the ordinance setback provision	Appellees: "business" includes the 480‑acre hunting operation (so setback violated)	Board/Deuel Harvest: "business" means physical/structural business sites; unimproved/agricultural land excluded	Court: Board’s interpretation reasonable and consistent with ordinance (agricultural uses excluded); affirmed Board’s definition
Whether the circuit court abused discretion by excluding deposition evidence	Appellees: depositions were necessary to prove bias and were improperly excluded	Deuel Harvest: much deposition material was irrelevant; circuit court properly excluded irrelevant portions	Court: some relevant deposition material was excluded (abuse of discretion), but excluded evidence would not probably have changed outcome; no reversible error
Effect of invalidating votes under statutory voting rules (SDCL 11‑2‑59)	Deuel Harvest: invalidating two votes effectively denied SEPs because statute required two‑thirds of entire board	Appellees/circuit court: invalidations justified, so approvals invalid	Court: circuit court erred in invalidating votes; reinstated Board’s unanimous approval of SEPs (noting subsequent 2020 legislative change to voting rule occurred after this case)

Key Cases Cited

Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868 (Due process recusal required only in extraordinary circumstances where objective probability of bias exists)
Armstrong v. Turner Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 772 N.W.2d 643 (S.D.) (quasi‑judicial boards subject to constitutional due process; recusal principles)
Hanig v. City of Winner, 692 N.W.2d 202 (S.D.) (presumption of official objectivity; analysis of direct pecuniary interest)
Jensen v. Turner Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 730 N.W.2d 411 (S.D.) (scope of certiorari review of boards limited)
Wedel v. Beadle Cnty. Comm’n, 884 N.W.2d 755 (S.D.) (board actions sustained unless forbidden by law or neglected duty)
Cole v. Bd. of Adjustment of City of Huron, 592 N.W.2d 175 (S.D.) (ordinance interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)