> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.sdnewswatch.org/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# CUPs: What they are, why Crooks residents sued Sioux Falls
- URL: https://www.sdnewswatch.org/south-dakota-smithfield-crooks-sioux-falls-lawsuit/
- Published: 2026-08-19T09:00:18.000Z
- Updated: 2026-08-19T09:00:17.000Z
- Description: The lawsuit over a conditional use permit reflects a longstanding tension between residents, often of rural areas, and those who make decisions about how the land around them gets used.
- Author: Molly Wetsch
- Tags: Explanations

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – The complaints of more than 20 plaintiffs from Crooks about the City of Sioux Falls’ approval of a new Smithfield meatpacking plant saw their day in court recently. The Aug. 3 hearing represented how developments requiring the circumventing of zoning laws in South Dakota can often draw opposition from residents. 

The case centers specifically around the conditional use permit (CUP) that the city council approved for the Smithfield site. That permit allowed for the new Smithfield facility to be built less than 1,000 feet from land zoned for residential use in the small town of Crooks. Plaintiffs are alleging that the city didn't follow common procedure when granting Smithfield the permit.

****Get free, fact-based South Dakota news and information** in a weekday email. No spam. Cancel any time.

[Subscribe ](https://www.sdnewswatch.org/#/portal) 

The debate about conditional use permits, and how and when zoning authorities should use them, has become more prominent in South Dakota. Changes in the Legislature and court cases raise questions about land use and development in the state.

Here are the answers to common questions about CUPs and the Smithfield development:

## What is a conditional use permit? 

A conditional use permit allows for the construction on or use of land in a manner that is [different from typical zoning requirements](https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/11-2-17.4?ref=sdnewswatch.org). 

State law SDCL 11-2-17.3 establishes the review requirements for a CUP to be issued, saying "the approving authority shall consider the stated criteria, the objectives of the comprehensive plan, and the purpose of the zoning ordinance and the relevant zoning districts when making a decision to approve or disapprove a conditional use request." 

CUPs can and have been controversial because they act outside of zoning laws and require city and planning approval to do so. The permitting process has been modified several times in the state Legislature. In initial state law, two-thirds of voting members of a city or county board had to vote in favor of a CUP. That was changed in 2020 to require a simple majority of voting members in [legislation pushed by former Gov. Kristi Noem](https://www.sdnewswatch.org/south-dakota-job-corps-nemo-government-funding/).

In 2023, [the South Dakota Legislature](https://www.sdpb.org/politics/2023-01-23/house-passes-members-present-standard-for-conditional-use-permit-votes?ref=sdnewswatch.org) changed that requirement further, requiring only a majority of present voting members to approve the permit. For example, if there are five members of a county planning board but two are not present at a meeting, a CUP proposed at that meeting would only need two "yes" votes to pass rather than three.

## Why was a CUP needed for the Smithfield site?

In February, Smithfield Foods announced that it would be relocating its century-old pork processing facility out of downtown Sioux Falls.

Foundation Park, the site where the new Smithfield site will sit, is called "the state’s first and largest industrial mega site" by the city of Sioux Falls. Other properties at the site include a new CJ Schwans' Asian food factory – which will be one of the largest in the country upon completion – and an Amazon distribution center that opened in 2022\. The more than-800 acre park is zoned for "heavy industrial use." 

Heavy industrial sites, according to Sioux Falls' zoning ordinances, "may create some nuisance and are not properly associated with, nor compatible with, residential, office, institutional, or planned or neighborhood commercial establishments." 

The current Smithfield pork processing plant processes around 20,000 hogs per day and is one of the largest meat processing plants in the country. The new plant at Foundation Park will be even larger.

[Fact brief: Is Smithfield Foods one of the largest meat processing plants?City and state officials announced Monday that Smithfield Foods will build a new plant in northwestern Sioux Falls, freeing up prime land near downtown.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/cb/ab/cbabab5e-2dc6-462c-94a0-b72956c0d224/content/images/icon/SDNW-Logo-Vertical-fa481401-941b-454b-a12e-d075193e4dbf.jpg)South Dakota News WatchMichael Klinski![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/cb/ab/cbabab5e-2dc6-462c-94a0-b72956c0d224/content/images/thumbnail/Smithfield-d395078e-1a40-4e49-b8e8-ec65cacd575d.jpeg)](https://www.sdnewswatch.org/fact-brief-smithfield-foods-meatpacking-plant-sioux-falls/)

Under Sioux Falls city zoning ordinance, a heavy industrial site must sit at least 1,000 feet from the property line of land zoned for residential use. The Smithfield site will be roughly 842 feet from residential plots to the north, according to the CUP initially considered by the Sioux Falls planning commission. The commission recommended approval on March 4 and the Sioux Falls City Council formally approved the permit on March 17.

## Why are residents suing?

The plaintiffs, who are largely residents of the area adjacent to the new Smithfield site, filed their case hoping for a writ of certiorari from state court. They sued the city of Sioux Falls, not Smithfield, and the Sioux Falls Development Foundation joined the defendants as an intervenor.

To grant a writ of certiorari, the plaintiffs have to prove that the city acted with “irregular authority” or outside of its jurisdiction in issuing a CUP to Smithfield. Because the Smithfield site is within Sioux Falls city limits, the argument plaintiffs are making is not whether city officials had the right to issue a CUP but whether they did it correctly. 

Steve Haugaard, a former Republican legislator from Sioux Falls, and Arvid Swanson, an attorney from Canton, represented the Crooks residents in the case. Both attorneys argued that the city of Sioux Falls did not properly consider the impacts of the development on surrounding residential properties and that the process by which the CUP was approved did not provide proper mitigation of those concerns.  
  
In his arguments during the Aug. 3 hearing, Haugaard called the city council's granting of the CUP an "injustice." 

****Support stories about rural South Dakota with a tax-deductible donation.**

[Donate ](https://www.sdnewswatch.org/donate/) 

In a Crooks City Council meeting in March, members of the Sioux Falls Development Foundation and Smithfield gathered with a standing-room only crowd of Crooks citizens to answer questions about the new development. Though the meeting was originally intended to be in a "science fair" format, where people could walk to different stations and ask questions one-on-one, attendees demanded that questions be answered publicly, one-by-one. Questions and complaints raised varied from truck traffic and odor to Chinese espionage. 

But the most echoed complaint was that the city of Sioux Falls had not informed residents about the plan to move before it was announced to the public on Feb. 17\. 

"One of the things that concerns me the most is why I just found out about it on a news release two weeks ago when, I'm just guessing here, but this whole plan had to be in the works for years or more," one resident said during the meeting. "Can anyone tell me why we were just notified when the mayor of Sioux Falls made the announcement?"

![Foundation Park, the 800-acre industrial megasite where the new Smithfield pork processing plant will be located](https://storage.ghost.io/c/cb/ab/cbabab5e-2dc6-462c-94a0-b72956c0d224/content/images/2026/08/DSC_0351-1-1-1.JPG)

Foundation Park, the 800-acre industrial megasite where the new Smithfield pork processing plant will be located, pictured near homes on 258th St in Sioux Falls, S.D. on Aug. 17, 2026\. Pictured is a new CJ Schwan's factory, which will be one of the country's largest Asian food factories (right) and Owens & Minor and Avera's integrated service center (left). The Smithfield site will be located on the pictured lot. (Photo: Molly Wetsch/South Dakota News Watch)

During the city council meeting, Bob Mundt, president of the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, said that the agreements to move the Smithfield plant were signed on the Friday before the announcement and that no notification could be made to any member of the public before those agreements were signed.

The defendants, which include both the city of Sioux Falls and the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, argued that the process of approving the permit did not constitute any overstep of authority. 

James Moore, an attorney for the city, said during the hearing that the "lengthy proceedings" before the planning commission and city council, as well as opportunity for "extensive public comment," should be considered sufficient consideration for legal standards.

## What other court cases have there been about CUPs in South Dakota?

While the size of the development and implications of the Smithfield relocation have certainly brought more attention to the case, it is not nearly the first of its kind in South Dakota. 

The case reflects a longstanding tension between residents, often of rural areas, and those who make decisions about how the land around them gets used. CUPs have ended up in court several times across the state, oftentimes for major agricultural operations like Smithfield's plant.

At the Aug. 3 hearing, attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendants referred to prior cases in South Dakota court surrounding CUPs, illustrating the issue of how city and county authority manifests in the state. 

## What happens next?

Swanson and Haugaard have until Aug. 18 to submit a brief on behalf of the plaintiffs summarizing why the writ of certiorari should be granted. The defendants will then have another week to submit a responding brief. 

During the Aug. 3 hearing, though, Circuit Judge Ann Hoffman denied a motion for further discovery from the plaintiffs. But she has taken the writ of certiorari decision under advisement, meaning it could take days, weeks or months to reach a decision. 

[Share your thoughts on this story](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScdTmGFf24Uhwiwd%5FndSxHkv6oBGSAy1LxF9BbwRbhBK5KflA/viewform?usp=sf%5Flink&ref=sdnewswatch.org)

**South Dakota News Watch* is an independent nonprofit. *Read*, *subscribe* for free and *donate* at* [*sdnewswatch.org*](http://sdnewswatch.org/?ref=sdnewswatch.org)*. *Contact* reporter/*[*Report for America*](https://www.reportforamerica.org/?ref=sdnewswatch.org) *corps member Molly Wetsch: 605-531-7382/*[*molly.wetsch@sdnewswatch.org*](mailto:molly.wetsch@sdnewswatch.org)*.*