Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2018

Home

February 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 4 Zoning Bulletin purchased a house in McKennan Park. The house they purchased was designated an "intrusion" and "noncontributing property," and it was not listed on the state or national registers of historic places. The Sapienzas originally planned to renovate the house, but ultimately decided to raze it and construct a new home on the property. In furtherance of their plans, the Sapienzas submitted architectural render- ings to the Board of Historic Preservation (the "Board") of the City of Sioux Falls (the "City"). The Sapienzas disclosed to the Board that some changes may be made to the plans submitted. The Sapienzas also notified the Board that their home would be larger than the previous structure. Based on the in- formation provided, the Board approved the Sapienzas' proposal, and the City issued a building permit for the proposed construction. In October 2014, the Sapienzas began constructing their new home. Construction of the home was complete in January 2016. In the interim, in May 2015, owners of the property adjacent to the Sapienzas' property —Pierce and Barbara McDowell (the "McDowells")— sued the Sapienzas. The McDowells' suit against the Sapienzas was based on theories of negligence and nuisance. Among other things, the McDowells al- leged that construction of the Sapienzas' home violated a state regulations governing new construction in historic districts—ARSD 24:52:07:04. ARSD 24:52:07:04 establishes standards for "[n]ew construction or additions within a historic district." It covers numerous standards including, among others, the design, height, width, and proportion of such new construction. The circuit court agreed that the Sapienzas home violated state historic - district regulations. The court entered judgment in favor of the McDowells. The court issued a. mandatory injunction requiring the Sapienzas to modify their home to comply with the state regulation for historic districts. The Sapienzas appealed. On appeal, the Sapienzas argued that ARSD 24:52:07:04 did not apply to their property because their home was not listed on the state or national registers. They relied on ARSD 24:52:07:01, which provides that the regulations in ARSD chapter 24:52:07 "apply to historic properties listed on the state register or the national register, or both." They interpreted ARSD 24:52:07:01 to limit ARSD 24:52:07:04's application to new construction on individual properties already listed on the state or national registers. They also argued that the court abused its discretion in granting an injunction requiring modification of their home (as opposed to requiring them to pay monetary damages). DECISION: Judgment of circuit court affirmed in relevant part. The Supreme Court of South Dakota held that the State historic -district regulations applied to the Sapienzas' new home constructed in the McKennan Park Historic District. In so holding, the court disagreed with the Sapienzas' interpretation of the historic -district regulations. The court explained that "although ARSD 24:52:07:01 indicates that the rules in ARSD chapter 24:52:07 apply to historic properties listed on the state or national registers, the McKennan Park Historic District itself is a `historic property' that is `listed' on the state and national registers." The court said this was because the enabling statutes for ARSD 6 ©2018 Thomson Reuters