994 N.W.2d 222
S.D.2023Background
- Dakota Constructors bought a Hanson County quarry in 2021 that had operated under state mining licenses since 1986.
- Hanson County’s Zoning Ordinance (effective 2000) zones the parcel agricultural; extraction of sand/gravel/minerals in AG requires a conditional use permit (CUP).
- Dakota Constructors applied for a CUP but argued the quarry was a continuing prior nonconforming use; the County Zoning Administrator required a CUP.
- State mine reports from 2004–2021 showed zero tons mined from the ground; operators had been removing only previously extracted stockpiles during that period.
- The Board of Adjustment found ‘‘extraction’’ means taking material from the ground, concluded extraction had ceased for over one year, and granted a CUP with conditions (including erosion repairs).
- The circuit court denied Dakota Constructors’ certiorari petition; the Supreme Court affirmed, giving deference to the Board’s ordinance interpretation and upholding its factual finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dakota Constructors could operate without a CUP as a continuing prior nonconforming quarry use | Dakota Constructors: quarry use never ceased—state license, ongoing removal of stockpiled aggregate, and statutory definitions mean ‘‘extraction’’ includes removing exposed/stockpiled material | Board: ‘‘extraction’’ means removal from the ground; removing stockpiles is not mining for zoning purposes; state licensing is distinct from county land‑use regulation | Court: Affirmed. Gave deference to Board under SDCL 11‑2‑61.1; Board’s interpretation reasonable and factual finding of >1 year cessation supported by state mine reports; certiorari denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Powers v. Turner Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 983 N.W.2d 594 (S.D. 2022) (limits of certiorari review and deference to boards)
- Ehlebracht v. Deuel Cnty. Planning Comm’n, 972 N.W.2d 464 (S.D. 2022) (certiorari review scope and standards)
- Croell Redi‑Mix, Inc. v. Pennington Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 905 N.W.2d 344 (S.D. 2017) (administrative construction gets weight but is not binding when ordinance unambiguous)
- Holborn v. Deuel Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 955 N.W.2d 363 (S.D. 2021) (board interpretation upheld when consistent with ordinance purpose)
- Dunham v. Lake Cnty. Comm’n, 943 N.W.2d 330 (S.D. 2020) (reversal where board failed to follow clear ordinance requirement)
- State v. Powers, 758 N.W.2d 918 (S.D. 2008) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; deference does not apply to state law)
- Wegner Auto Co. v. Ballard, 353 N.W.2d 57 (S.D. 1984) (administrative construction not binding on courts)