Chicken farm opponents win in court

A Turner County judge struck down the county’s zoning ordinance Tuesday, saying its commissioners adopted the suggestions of an egg farmer without proper public notice.

The ruling is a win for opponents of the 6-million hen egg-laying facility that Sioux Falls-based Sonstegard Foods hopes to place less than three miles from Parker city limits.

A group of neighbors sued Turner County and company VP Peter Sonstegard in February, saying a fax from Sonstegard outlining zoning changes favorable to chicken project was adopted without public notice or input.

The setback changes, offered to Commission Chair Lyle Van Hove one day before a major zoning re-write’s final adoption, explicitly allowed for the placement of a dry manure chicken barn of the proposal’s size within 2.17 miles of a city or municipality.

Under the previous ordinance, a facility with six million birds would have to be nearly 5.5 miles from town unless a variance were approved.

Instead of returning the setback suggestions to the planning board, the commission voted to incorporate them into the board’s version and approve the ordinance.

Previous coverage:Chicken fight in Turner County mirrors statewide debate

Chicken farm opponents make their case

6M chickens could come to roost in Turner County

Judge Tim Bjorkman’s decision says the changes should have been sent back to the planning group for review, and that the commission’s failure to do so was a violation of the rights of Turner County citizens.

The manner in which the new rules were adopted “contravened basic notions of due process and the specific dictates of South Dakota law by depriving property owners and the public of a meaningful opportunity to be heard as to the business its government was considering,” Bjorkman wrote.

The ruling says the 2014 zoning ordinance is invalid and unenforceable.

“We’re pleased with the decision, but it’s unfortunate that my clients had to incur the expense of a lawsuit when the commissioners should have followed the law in the first place,” said Mike Schaffer, the lawyer representing the opponents.

Lawyers for the company and the county did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Either Sonstegard or the county could appeal Bjorkman’s ruling. The defendants had argued that the changes adopted after discussion of the Sonstegard fax did not constitute substantial changes, and that all public notice requirements had been fulfilled.

The judge rejected those arguments, saying that South Dakota law only gave commissioners the leeway to approve or reject a proposed ordinance, not change it without additional public notice.

If the ruling stands, the planning commission would need to revisit the ordinance, which the group had worked on in monthly meetings for nearly a year in the run-up to the commission’s approval.

If the commission ultimately adopted the same ordinance, the decision could be referred to a public vote.

Supporters of the Sonstegard project talked about the economic impact of the facility and the benefits for county farmers, from whom the company would buy grain and sell manure for fertilizer.

Opponents worried about the smell of the facility and the potential for environmental impacts.