Croell Redi-Mix v. Pennington Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 905 N.W.2d 344

Croell Redi-Mix (Croell) owns Perli Quarry, a 40-acre sand/gravel mining operation in Pennington County, operating since the 1970s; Croell acquired it in 2015 and sought to expand operations.
Pennington County zoning designates the area A-1 General Agriculture; PCZO § 205(B) lists mining and extraction as allowed uses but PCZO § 507 governs permitting (construction permits and a separate mining permit regime).
Croell applied for a construction permit under PCZO § 507(A); the Planning Director and Planning Commission approved with conditions; opponents appealed to the Board of Commissioners.
The Board reversed the Director’s approval (4–1); Croell appealed to the circuit court under SDCL ch. 7-8. The circuit court reversed the Board and ordered reinstatement of the permit.
The Supreme Court reviewed three issues: (1) whether the Board could hear the appeal, (2) whether the proposed mining could be authorized by a construction permit, and (3) whether the Board’s decision was arbitrary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board properly entertained the appeal from the Planning Director	Croell: appellants lacked standing under PCZO §507(A)(7)(f); no individualized injury	Board: §507(A)(7)(f) permits review by any person affected; judicial standing rules don’t constrain administrative review	Board properly entertained the appeal; appellants were “affected” and statute governs right to appeal
Whether Croell’s proposed mining could be authorized by a construction permit	Croell: mining/extraction is a permitted use in A-1 under §205(B) and historical practice excused a mining permit for long‑standing operations	Board: §507(B) unambiguously requires a mining permit for extraction over 100 cubic yards; construction permits cannot authorize such extraction	Held for Board: §507(B) unambiguously forbids extraction >100 cubic yards without a mining permit; construction permit was improper
Whether the Board’s reversal was arbitrary / unsupported by substantial evidence	Croell/circuit court: Board’s decision was arbitrary, review should be limited to erosion/stormwater conditions and evidence of harm was insubstantial	Board: decision applied the ordinance; denial rested on correct legal interpretation that a mining permit was required	Court reversed circuit court: Board’s action was lawful because the circuit court based arbitrariness finding on an erroneous legal interpretation of §507

Pennington Cnty. v. Moore, 525 N.W.2d 257 (S.D. 1994) (prior invalidation of county zoning led to recognition of legal nonconforming uses)
Atkinson v. City of Pierre, 706 N.W.2d 791 (S.D. 2005) (discusses deference to administrative construction of ordinances in context)
Wegner Auto Co. v. Ballard, 353 N.W.2d 57 (S.D. 1984) (courts may give weight to administrators’ interpretation but are not bound if ordinance is clear)
Cable v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 769 N.W.2d 817 (S.D. 2009) (judicial standing/"aggrieved" requirement for appeals to circuit court under SDCL 7-8-27)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (framework for judicial review of agency interpretations: give effect to unambiguous text; if ambiguous, defer to reasonable agency construction)