Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2019

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 22 In rejecting Petitioners' argument that permit fees were a `prerequisite" to a land use decision and not a "land use decision" subject to LUPA, the court noted that there were "many other prerequisites that must be met before the final decision is is- sued, but those activities or conditions are all tied to the decision process nonethe- less, occurring within the processing of the application." Accepting and adopting the Petitioners' argument would, said the court, "divide a land use decision into component pieces, each of which would arguably support a clairn for monetary dam- ages arising out of the decision process." The court noted that in prior cases it had rejected such an argument. Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that permit applicants are not without legal recourse to challenge permit application fees as "unreasonable." The court noted that LUPA allows for review procedures "to establish the basis to seek review and bring a chal- lenge, provided the tirne limits are met" (which Petitioners failed to meet here). Referendum Petition —Petitioners fail to provide ordinance title and date on zoning referendum petition County auditor rejects petition for those failings, but petitioners argue petition should not be rejected on "mere technicalities" Citation: Thompson v. Lynde, 2018 SD 69, 2018 WL 4623400 (S.D. 2018) SOUTH DAKOTA (09/26/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether a petitioner's failure to substantially comply with the express conditions of the state statute governing the description of the matter to be covered by a referendum petition required rejection of the referendum petition. The Background/Facts: In May 2017, the County Commissioners of Deuel County (the "County") passed an ordinance (the "Ordinance") that amended Wind Energy System ("WES") zoning requirements. Subsequently, Doyle Thompson, Debra Huber, Allen Skatvold, and Dennis D. Evenson (the "Petitioners") circulated petitions to obtain the necessary signatures to refer the Ordinance for a special election referendum. Of those three peti- tions, the County Auditor rejected two for failure to comply with the state statute governing referendum petition requirements—SDCL 7-18A-17. That statute requires a referendum petition to include the title and date of passage of an ordinance. Specifically, it provides that "the petition shall contain the © 2018 Thomson Reuters 5