Adolph v. Grant County Board of Adjustment

Summary

Geraldine and Barth Adolph challenged the Grant County Board of Adjustment’s approval of a conditional-use permit for a concentrated animal-feeding operation. The South Dakota Supreme Court held that the Board erred by applying an incorrect legal standard concerning consideration of environmental violations by a prospective operator, but rejected the appellants’ other challenges concerning pollution, setbacks, manure management, notice, due process, and alleged bias. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Holdings

1. The Board regularly pursued its authority on these issues. The record showed that the Board considered wastewater conveyance and pollution concerns, the ordinance did not require rejection merely because the application did not fully explain runoff, prevailing-wind consideration was tied to whether additional odor or fly controls were needed, increased setbacks were discretionary, the challenged manure-management provisions imposed no specific duty on the Board, and the Board made the required findings concerning public interest and compatibility.
2. The Board acted illegally by applying the incorrect legal standard that past environmental violations of a prospective CAFO operator were always irrelevant. Under the Zoning Ordinance for Grant County, if the Board determines that a person will have charge or control of the CAFO, that person's current and past CAFO-related environmental violations must be considered.
3. Nelson's engineer did not present a new plan during rebuttal. The application already indicated that waste and runoff would be collected and diverted to wastewater ponds, and the engineer's hearing comments explained rather than changed that plan. The Adolphs therefore received meaningful participation and were not denied due process.
4. The Adolphs failed to establish actual bias or an unacceptable risk of actual bias. The Board's time limits, consideration of the competing expert submissions, and Chairwoman Johnson's familiarity with the applicant's engineering firm and assessment of witness credibility did not demonstrate impermissible bias.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Grant County Board of Adjustment regularly pursued its authority in granting Nelson's conditional-use permit.
2. Whether Nelson presented a new leachate or runoff-disposal plan during the hearing, denying the Adolphs meaningful participation and due process.
3. Whether the Board exhibited actual bias or an unacceptable risk of bias requiring a new hearing.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded