Simplified: A Minnehaha County judge last week sided with landowners in a case involving the City of Sioux Falls' process related to approving Smithfield Foods' new pork processing plant. Judge Ann M. Hoffman ruled that the city did not follow its own ordinances when it came to approving the conditional use permit that paved the way for the new plant in northwest Sioux Falls adjacent to Crooks. So, what happens next?

Why it matters

  • The judge's ruling isn't a death knell for the Smithfield project, said Steven Haugaard, an attorney representing the petitioners. He said he likes to think Smithfield, the city, and the Sioux Falls Development Foundation are "looking at all of their reasonable options."
  • But it is a setback. The judge's decision reverses the conditional use permit the council previously approved to allow the plant to be built in Foundation Park.
  • City Attorney Dave Pfeifle declined comment after an executive session in which the City Council was expected to discuss the litigation on Tuesday afternoon. Legal representation from the development foundation did not respond to requests for comment.
  • City Council Vice Chair Jennifer Sigette said she and fellow councilors don't yet know exactly what the next step will be, but that "there are a lot of options," including appealing the judge's decision.
"We're still looking into it," said Jim David, chief of staff for Mayor Christine Erickson, both of whom were also in the executive session, which ran over an hour Tuesday afternoon. "We should have more information in the next 24 to 48 hours."

How did we get here?

Back in April – just a few months after Smithfield announced the big move – about 20 homeowners adjacent to the proposed Smithfield site teamed up to take legal action. They filed a petition for the court to issue a writ of certiorari – which is, essentially, a way for the court to tell a governing body, "hey, you didn't follow the rules – try again."

  • For Patti Guthrie, one of the petitioners and a homeowner adjacent to the proposed Smithfield site, said she filed the petition because she felt it was her "duty to let it be known how the process went."

Homeowners like Guthrie have been vocal about frustrations that only four of the houses adjacent to the Smithfield site were offered buy-outs.

  • Those four homes, per court documents, were purchased by the Sioux Falls Development Foundation for a combined total of more than $5.4 million.

The nearest property outside of the four that were purchased to pave way for the new facility is only 842 feet away from the site. That's less than the 1,000 feet allowed in city zoning ordinances – which is why Smithfield needed a conditional use permit in the first place.

What's a conditional use permit?

It's basically exactly what it sounds like. It's a permit that lets a property owner use land in a way that isn't expressly allowed in zoning ordinances, but is OK if the City Council says it's OK – under certain conditions.

  • In Smithfield's case, the city discussed conditions like a 10-foot berm separating residential areas from the plant, traffic signals to mitigate traffic concerns, and air scrubbers to mitigate smells.

What did the judge say?

Hoffman ruled that the City Council "did not conform to the minimum requirements set forth in zoning ordinance."

  • The opinion, signed on Oct. 1, went on to detail 10 minimum requirements for a conditional use permit related to heavy industrial zoning.

Of those 10 things, Hoffman said the City Council neglected to:

  • require Smithfield to conduct a neighborhood meeting,
  • require Smithfield to present a building design with measures to prevent infiltration of groundwater in the event of leakage,
  • require Smithfield to present a report from the fire department regarding any building tandards that must be met,
  • and, finally, require Smithfield to submit a site management plan outlining litter, odor, and product control measures to be approved by the planning and health departments.

Hoffman said those listed above are "all instances wherein the City Council is required to impose conditions to protect the health, safety and general welfare when approving a CUP (conditional use permit)."

What happens next?

That's the money question.

Both the petitioners and the City Council met with attorneys Tuesday afternoon to discuss next steps.

  • Guthrie said she'd like to see Smithfield relocate its new plant to a space "at least two miles" from any residential area.
  • Haugaard said he hopes the city and Smithfield are "looking at all their positions."
"I think they've got to explore all their options," Haugaard said. "And I think we've got to come together and compare notes and see if we can come to a common solution."