Grant County Concerned Citizens v. Grant County Board of Adjustment
2015 SD 54
| S.D. | 2015Background
- Teton LLC applied for a conditional use permit to build a Class A CAFO in Grant County to house 7,816 swine (6,616 finisher; 1,200 nursery). The county published notice but transposed the counts of finisher/nursery swine.
- At a public Board of Adjustment hearing, neighbors (Grant County Concerned Citizens and Timothy Tyler) raised objections: an allegedly proximate private well on the Tylers’ property, alleged deficiencies in manure/nutrient management plans and acreage contracts, inadequate notice to Melrose Township, water-supply concerns, and other environmental/community/economic issues.
- The Board found the Tylers’ excavation was not a “well” under the applicable zoning setback (or was contested factually) and approved the permit with conditions (e.g., odor/biofilter measures, tree buffers).
- Petitioners appealed to circuit court via certiorari review; the circuit court affirmed the Board and struck an affidavit submitted by Tyler after the decision; petitioners then appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court reviewed only whether the Board ‘‘regularly pursued its authority’’ (certiorari standard) and whether the circuit court abused discretion by striking Tyler’s affidavit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a private well within 2,640-foot setback precluded permit | Tyler/GCCC: Excavation was a well used to obtain groundwater within setback, so permit violated ZOGC | Board/Teton: Existence and purpose of the excavation were factual disputes for the Board to resolve; ZOGC not tied to SDCL well definition | Held: Board regularly pursued authority; factual disputes about whether excavation was a well precluded overturning on certiorari |
| Whether manure management / acreage documentation complied with ZOGC | GCCC: Teton overstated available acres/contracts invalid or unusable so plan noncompliant | Teton/Board: Acreage adequacy and contract issues were factual, not indisputable; Board could credit evidence supporting sufficiency | Held: Board regularly pursued authority; factual disputes properly resolved by Board |
| Whether procedural defects (notice to Melrose Township, published notice error, denial of copying, five‑minute limit) violated due process | GCCC: Failure to notify Melrose, mispublished animal counts, restricted access to documents, and time limits denied meaningful participation | Board/Teton: Melrose had actual notice; published notice complied with ordinance and class A designation was stated; record access existed; time limits allowed meaningful participation (written submissions allowed) | Held: No due process violation; Board regularly pursued authority; errors or limits did not render hearing invalid |
| Whether circuit court abused discretion in striking Tyler’s post-decision affidavit | GCCC: Tyler’s affidavit about well purpose was necessary to resolve whether excavation was a well and should have been admitted | Board/Teton: Admission of new affidavit would convert certiorari review into de novo review; circuit court has discretion to admit or exclude supplemental evidence | Held: No abuse of discretion; circuit court properly excluded affidavit because it was not necessary to determine whether Board regularly pursued authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Duffy v. Cir. Ct., 676 N.W.2d 126 (S.D. 2004) (explaining certiorari review of board decisions does not decide correctness of findings)
- Elliott v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 703 N.W.2d 361 (S.D. 2005) (board actions sustained unless forbidden by law or required acts omitted)
- Jensen v. Turner Cnty. Bd. of Adj’t, 730 N.W.2d 411 (S.D. 2007) (standard for sustaining board’s actions)
- Hines v. Bd. of Adj’t of City of Miller, 675 N.W.2d 231 (S.D. 2004) (certiorari scope limited to regularity of authority exercised)
- Lamar Outdoor Advertising of S.D., Inc. v. City of Rapid City, 731 N.W.2d 199 (S.D. 2007) (court may scrutinize board action where board acted fraudulently or in willful disregard of indisputable proof)
- Schafer v. Deuel Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 725 N.W.2d 241 (S.D. 2006) (notice and hearing requirements afford affected landowners opportunity to present evidence)
- Osloond v. Farrier, 659 N.W.2d 20 (S.D. 2003) (procedural due process requires protected interest and deprivation without process)
- Wangsness v. Builders Cashway, Inc., 779 N.W.2d 136 (S.D. 2010) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)