Noem zoning bill heads for the House
By:
Dana Hess, Community News Service
Gov. Kristi Noem once again personally made her case for SB157, her bill that would streamline county zoning decisions in South Dakota.
As she did before the Senate State Affairs Committee earlier in the session, on March 3 Noem testified before the House State Affairs Committee declaring: “The support for this legislation is strong.”
SB157 is designed to put some clarity into the process of applying for the conditional use permits that are often used in confined animal feeding operations or CAFOs. The bill changes the number of county commissioners needed on a conditional use permit approval from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority of the members present. It also allows for court costs to be paid by the losing party in a court challenge.
“We must fix the issues that will hold us back,” Noem said, offering the legislation as a boost for economic development. That development too often “has been highjacked by a vocal few,” Noem said.
Noem policy adviser Jason Simmons went through the sections of the bill, noting that the time limit on an approved conditional use permit would start after the appeals are finished. In some cases, appeals drag on for so long that time runs out on the original permit.
“The clock starts ticking after the appeal,” Simmons said.
Volga farmer Scott VanderWal, representing the S.D. Farm Bureau, asked the committee to approve the bill “because of the positive impact it will have on the next generation of farmers and ranchers.”
According to VanderWal, passage of SB157 would ensure that more families are able to bring their children back to their farm and ranch operations.
“We’re exporting our most valuable resource,” VanderWal said. “This can be a way for a farmer’s heirs to come back to the farm.”
Brian Donahoe, representing the S.D. Pork Producers Council, said that South Dakota is unique in its requirement that conditional use permits must be approved by a two-thirds majority.
“A simple majority is not something you should be afraid of here,” Donahoe said.
The bill also had support from bankers, the S.D. Chamber of Commerce and Industry, wind energy developers, cooperatives, corn growers, livestock growers, the ethanol industry and chambers of commerce from Rapid City, Sioux Falls and Brookings.
The bill was opposed by former legislator Shawn Tornow, a Republican from Sioux Falls, who said that Republican members of the committee should heed their conservative principles.
“Government should not be in the position of picking winners and losers,” Tornow said.
Tornow criticized the need to having the loser in an appeal pay court costs.
“You’re targeting neighbors who may have reasonable concerns,” Tornow said. “We’re going to ding you with costs.”
Rebecca Terk of Dakota Rural Action said speeding the permit process would not allow county commissioners the time they need to consider all the ramifications of their decisions. CAFOs can cause heavy use of infrastructure, Terk said, noting that South Dakota’s county roads need $257 million worth of repair and county bridges need repairs worth $250 million.
“We need those super-majority decisions,” Terk said.
Rep. Steven Haugaard, R-Sioux Falls, asked why the vote needed to be taken by the members present and not the full commission. He envisioned a scenario where two members of a five-member board were absent, two of the remaining members abstained and the decision on the conditional use permit would be left to just one commissioner.
Donahoe said that situation would likely never happen. With a two-thirds requirement, a “vocal minority” can kill a conditional use permit by getting just one of five members to vote no, Donahoe said.
Haugaard said he could imagine a commissioner staying away from the meeting because he didn’t want to offend his neighbors. “If you’re going to be on that commission, you go vote.”
The bill was passed by the committee on a vote of 10-3. It now goes to the House floor. It has already been endorsed by the Senate.
