Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/09/2014

Home

August 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 16 Zoning Bulletin invoking the de novo standard of review in circuit court. (See SDCL § 7-8- 30.) The court, however, found that such classification was not arbitrary. Rather, the court found that the two classes of citizens were "postured in the same stance" with "the rights of every person be[ing] governed by the same rule of law, under similar circumstances." In other words, the court found that the classification created by the statutory scheme did not involve the same cir- cumstances (and thus did not require the same rule of law). The court found that the classification could be related to a "difference in `terms' surrounding individuals" based upon the procedural differences involved in CUP decisions by a board of adjustment compared to CUP decisions by a county commis- sion —where an applicant seeking a CUP must obtain a super -majority vote of a board of adjustment versus a simple -majority vote of a county commission. The court concluded that since the procedures in obtaining a CUP before a board of adjustment were different from the procedures before a county com- mission, this made the citizens appealing a board of adjustment's CUP deci- sion in circuit court different from citizens similarly appealing a CUP decision from a county commission. Thus, the court concluded that although in practice the classification of citizens may result in "some inequality," there was a plausible reason for the differing standards of review and thus the court's in- quiry was "at an end." Nonetheless, the court addressed the second prong of its test. Determining no fundamental right was involved, the court looked at whether a rational rela- tionship existed between the "legitimate legislative purpose and the classification." The court found there was such a rational relationship here in that "[i]t is a legitimate legislative purpose to create different procedural means by which certain county authorities manage proceedings before them," "where dissimilar circumstances result in different standards of review at the circuit court level." See also: Armstrong v. Turner County Bd. of Adjustment, 2009 SD 81, 772 N. W.2d 643 (S.D. 2009). See also: Accounts Management, Inc. v. Williams, 484 N.W.2d 297, 299 (S.D. 1992). Case Note: The Citizens had insisted that a fundamental right was at stake because the Board of Adjustment's decision implicated a property right and a right to access courts. The court disagreed, finding the issue was the statutory scheme governing CUP decisions, and therefore, the Citizens' constitutional question did not involve a findamental right. Case Note: The Citizens had also argued that Moody County had failed to properly establish its Board of Adjustment because it had failed to validly enact its zoning ordinances and that therefore all action taken by the Board of Adjustment was void, including its ap- 4 © 2014 Thomson Reuters