Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 10 2016 Volume 10 Issue 17 SOUTH DAKOTA (06/28/16)—This case addresses the issue of whether a taxpayer has standing—based solely on the taxpayer's status as a taxpayer—to challenge a board of adjustment's decision. The Background/Facts: Michael Crinion and his company, Killeskillen, LLC ("Killeskillen") sought a conditional use permit ("CUP") to construct a new concentrated animal feeding operation { ("CAFO") in Brookings County (the "County"). The County Planning &Zoning Commission, sitting as the County Board of Adjustment(the "Board"), eventually voted to approve Killeskillen's CUP with conditions. Subsequently, Lake Hendricks Improvement Association, the City of Hendricks, Minnesota, and Norris Patrick (an individual) (collectively, the "Petitioners") petitioned the court challenging the Board's decision to grant the CUP.Among other things,the Petitioners asserted that the Board acted without jurisdiction when it granted the CUP because the County had failed to validly enact its ordinances in 2007 governing CUPS(the"Ordinances"). Killeskillen asked the court to dismiss the petition. It argued that the Petitioners lacked standing (i.e., the legal right to bring the claim) to challenge it. The circuit court denied Killeskillen's motion to dismiss, but issued judgment in favor of the Board. The court held that the Board pos- sessed jurisdiction to grant the CUP because, at the time Killeskillen applied for the CUP,the Ordinances were unchallenged. Petitioners appealed. On appeal, Killeskillen, among other things, again argued that the Petitioners lacked standing to challenge the Board's decision. DECISION: Judgment of Circuit Court reversed and matter remanded. The Supreme Court of South Dakota first held that Norris Patrick had standing to challenge the Board's decision. (Having so held, the court did not address whether Lake Hendricks Improvement Associa- tion or the City of Hendricks had standing, saying it"makes no differ- ence in the resolution of this case.") In so holding,the court explained that under South Dakota statutory law, SDCL 11-2-61: "[a]ny person or persons,jointly or severally, ag- grieved by any decision of the board of adjustment, or any taxpayer, or any officer, department, board, or bureau of the county, may present to a court of record a petition duly verified, setting forth that the decision is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the illegality." Killeskillen had argued that even though Norris Patrick was a taxpayer in the County,he lacked standing because he could not estab- lish the requisite"aggrieved"status.Killeskillen presented policy argu- ments,asserting that allowing anyone who merely pays real estate taxes ©2016 Thomson Reuters 3 c