994 N.W.2d 707
S.D.2023Background
- Michelle Hauck applied for a Clay County conditional use permit (CUP) on July 9, 2021, proposing a large campground (initially 408 sites).
- Planning Commission heard the application on August 30, 2021, tabled it with Hauck’s consent to allow an amended site plan; Hauck submitted a revised plan on September 21, 2021.
- The Planning Commission denied the CUP at its September 27, 2021 meeting; Hauck appealed to the Clay County Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment.
- The Board of Adjustment unanimously affirmed the Planning Commission’s denial; the settled record does not establish when or whether that decision was "filed in the office of the board of adjustment."
- Hauck filed a petition for writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus in circuit court on February 7, 2022; the circuit court dismissed certiorari as untimely and denied mandamus.
- On appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court, the Court reversed the dismissal of the certiorari petition (remanding to determine filing/timeliness) and affirmed the denial of mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of certiorari under SDCL 11-2-61 (30-day filing clock) | Hauck: the record does not show when the Board’s decision was filed in the Board’s office, so the court cannot conclude her petition was untimely | Board: petition filed more than 30 days after the Board’s decision was filed/served, so certiorari is untimely | Reversed dismissal; remanded to determine when/if decision was filed and thus whether petition was timely |
| Availability of mandamus under SDCL 11-2-35 given statutory scheme for CUP appeals | Hauck sought mandamus as an alternative remedy | Board: mandamus is not appropriate; statute makes certiorari the exclusive remedy for CUP appeals | Affirmed denial of mandamus; mandamus unavailable when statute prescribes certiorari as exclusive remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Hyde v. Sully Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 886 N.W.2d 355 (S.D. 2016) (time to appeal runs from filing of board decision)
- Jensen v. Lincoln Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 718 N.W.2d 606 (S.D. 2006) (mandamus appropriate only if no plain, speedy, adequate remedy)
- Sierra Club v. Clay Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 959 N.W.2d 615 (S.D. 2021) (statute makes certiorari the exclusive remedy to challenge CUP grants/denials)