Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2016

Home

September 10, 2016 Volume 10 Issue 17 Zoning Bulletin to challenge a zoning board's decision would add delay an expense to the zoning process and make "the statute so broad as to render it unworkable." The court rejected Killeskillen's argument. Looking at the plain language of the statute, the court found that the Legislature intended to create disjunctive classes of plaintiffs entitled to petition the circuit court: persons aggrieved by a board's decision or any taxpayer of the county. The court concluded that, under the plain language of SDCL 11-2-61, a taxpayer in the County could appeal the Board's decision. Accordingly,the court held that since Norris Patrick was a taxpayer in the County, he had standing under SDCL 11-2-61 to challenge the Board's grant of the CUP to Killeskillen here. As to the merits of the Petitioners' claim that the Board lacked juris- diction to grant Killeskillen the CUP because the governing Ordinances were invalid, the court said that depended on whether the County had validly adopted an ordinance designating the Board as the approving authority. The court remanded that issue to the circuit court to address. Case Note: In its decision, the court distinguished the requisite standing required under SDCL 7-8-27 fi-onz the standing required under SDCL 11-2-61. The former al- lows appeals from all decisions of the board of county commissioners "by ally person aggrieved upon filing a bond. . ."and identifies only one classification of"any person aggrieved.,"and the latter identifies two classifications of may person aggrieved or a taxpayer of the county. IL 4 ©2016 Thomson Reuters i �I p',