Lake Hendricks Improvement Ass'n v. Brookings County Planning & Zoning Commission
882 N.W.2d 307
S.D.2016Background
- Killeskillen, LLC applied in Sept. 2014 for a conditional use permit (CUP) to build a CAFO for up to 3,999 dairy cows in Brookings County; the County Planning & Zoning Commission (sitting as the Board of Adjustment) held a hearing and granted the CUP with conditions in Oct. 2014.
- Petitioners (Lake Hendricks Improvement Assn.; City of Hendricks, MN; and Norris Patrick) sought a writ of certiorari under SDCL chapter 11-2, arguing the Board acted without jurisdiction because Brookings County’s 2007 zoning ordinances (which authorize the Board to approve CUPs) were not validly adopted; alternatively they argued the Board failed to regularly pursue its authority (setback from a private well, lack of road-use agreement, aquifer protection zone).
- Killeskillen moved to dismiss, arguing Petitioners lacked standing under SDCL 11-2-61 and the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; the County argued the circuit court could not review the County Commission’s adoption of the ordinances under the limited writ scope.
- The circuit court denied dismissal, refused to consider the validity of the 2007 ordinances as beyond the writ’s scope, and upheld the Board’s CUP decision, reasoning the Board’s decision was unchallenged at the time and the evidence before the Board supported its findings.
- On appeal the Supreme Court held the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a petition under SDCL chapter 11-2 only if the petitioner has standing as defined by that statute; it found that at least one petitioner (taxpayer Norris Patrick) had statutory standing and that the court erred by refusing to review whether the County validly adopted the ordinances that conferred the Board’s authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the SDCL 11-2 petition | Petitioners: statute grants circuit court power to review board decisions; court has jurisdiction if petition presented | County/Killeskillen: petitioners lack standing so court lacks jurisdiction to hear petition | Court: subject-matter jurisdiction exists under SDCL chapter 11-2, but it can be invoked only by persons statutorily authorized (standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite here) |
| Whether Petitioners had standing under SDCL 11-2-61 | Petitioners: Norris Patrick is a county taxpayer and thus has standing under the statute | Killeskillen: mere taxpayer status is insufficient; standing should be cabined like "person aggrieved" tests | Court: SDCL 11-2-61’s plain language separately authorizes "any taxpayer," so Patrick has standing; no need to analyze other petitioners' standing |
| Whether the circuit court could, on writ review, examine the validity of the County’s 2007 zoning ordinances that conferred the Board’s authority | Petitioners: validity of the County’s ordinance is central because Board’s power to grant CUP derives from a properly adopted ordinance under chapter 11-2 | County/Killeskillen: writ scope is limited to reviewing Board decisions; county ordinance adoption is a separate action by another entity and beyond the writ remedy | Court: Court erred in refusing to consider ordinance validity. Whether the Board had jurisdiction depends on whether the County validly adopted the ordinance under chapter 11-2; remand to permit that inquiry (but court will not declare the ordinance void; relief limited to reversing/affirming/modifying the Board decision) |
| Whether the Board exceeded jurisdiction or failed to regularly pursue authority in granting the CUP (setbacks, road agreements, aquifer zone) | Petitioners: undisputed evidence shows violations of ordinance requirements (well setback, road agreement, Zone B aquifer) so Board acted without/abused jurisdiction | County/Killeskillen: Board complied with ordinance standards; evidence before Board supported findings and Board acted within its authority | Court: Because remand is required to resolve whether the Board had jurisdiction (ordinance validity), the Supreme Court did not decide these merits issues; they were left to the circuit court on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Tibbs v. Moody County Bd. of Comm’rs, 851 N.W.2d 208 (S.D. 2014) (examined county ordinance validity in a board-of-adjustment CUP appeal)
- Elliot v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Lake Cty., 703 N.W.2d 361 (S.D. 2005) (scope of writ under SDCL chapter 11-2: jurisdiction and regularity of pursuit of authority)
- Cable v. Union Cty. Bd. of Cty. Commn’rs, 769 N.W.2d 817 (S.D. 2009) (statutory standing required to invoke court’s subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Becker v. Pfeifer, 588 N.W.2d 913 (S.D. 1999) (test of jurisdiction is whether there was power to enter upon the inquiry)
- Schafer v. Deuel Cty. Bd. of Commr’s, 725 N.W.2d 241 (S.D. 2006) (zoning restricts land use; procedural protections in ch. 11-2 safeguard against arbitrary power)
- In re Estate of Smallman, 398 S.W.3d 134 (Tenn. 2013) (when statute creates or limits parties who may bring an action, standing is interwoven with subject-matter jurisdiction)