South Dakota
How Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners applies in South Dakota: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Land Use and Zoning.
In South Dakota, land use and zoning decisions are subject to a reasonable relation test, analyzing the connection between zoning regulations and community welfare. The principles established in Fasano emphasize that zoning changes should be made only when a substantial public purpose is achieved, and they foster a holistic consideration of community impacts.
Zoning changes in South Dakota require that the decision-making body demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the zoning regulation and public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
The court held that the city must provide a rational basis for its decision to deny a conditional use permit, aligning with Fasano's principles of reasonable relation.
Zoning decisions affecting public interests must be supported by substantial evidence, emphasizing a nexus between the decision and the community's welfare.
The court reiterated that if a zoning change serves a public interest, it supports the rationale for the decision making, in line with Fasano's requirements.
While federal land use law often emphasizes the role of rational basis review in zoning changes, South Dakota specifically requires that the relationship between the zoning change and public welfare be both reasonable and substantial. This creates a more stringent standard for land use decisions in South Dakota as compared to the more deferential federal approach.
Understanding the applicability of the Fasano principles is essential, as bar exam questions in the areas of land use and zoning often involve evaluating the reasonableness of local zoning decisions.