Wedel v. Beadle County Commission
884 N.W.2d 755
S.D.2016Background
- Westside submitted a CUP application to construct/operate a Class A CAFO in Beadle County (2014).
- Planning Commission held a hearing with objections and recommended approval under conditions; amended application followed.
- Planning Commission did not notify the public of the amendment or provide further consideration; County Commission, sitting as Board, approved the CUP on May 29, 2014.
- Petitioners filed a writ of certiorari under SDCL 11-2-61 challenging the Board’s authority to grant the CUP due to allegedly invalid 2011 Ordinances.
- Circuit court found the 2011 Ordinances improperly enacted for failure to follow SDCL 11-2-18 and thus invalid, but limited its remedy to the CUP decision rather than invalidating the ordinances themselves.
- The court later concluded the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the CUP and invalidated the CUP; on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the lack of jurisdiction but reversed the part invalidating the ordinances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court could consider the validity of the Ordinances under certiorari. | Wedel asserts the Ordinances invalid; court should review CUP decision only. | Board argues certiorari review limited to jurisdiction and regular pursuit, not ordinance validity. | Yes; court properly considered ordinance validity to assess jurisdiction. |
| Whether admitting minutes from Planning Commission/BCC meetings was proper evidence. | Minutes show improper enactment, relevant to jurisdiction. | Minutes are not dispositive but admissible as necessary evidence. | Yes; minutes properly admitted as material to jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jensen v. Turner Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 730 N.W.2d 411 (2007 S.D. 28) (certiorari review limits and jurisdictional analysis)
- Hines v. Bd. of Adjustment of City of Miller, 675 N.W.2d 231 (2004 S.D. 13) (role of jurisdiction and regular pursuit of authority)
- Tibbs v. Moody Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 851 N.W.2d 208 (2014 S.D. 44) (invalidly enacted ordinance defeats board jurisdiction)
- Save Centennial Valley Ass’n v. Schultz, 284 N.W.2d 452 (1979 SD) (due process and proper enactment procedures required)
- Schafer v. Deuel Cty. Bd. of Commr’s, 725 N.W.2d 241 (2006 S.D. 106) (due process protections for landowners in ordinance adoption)
- Grant County Concerned Citizens v. Grant County Bd. of Adjustment, 866 N.W.2d 149 (2015 S.D. 54) (standards for board actions and jurisdiction under certiorari)
- Becker v. Pfeifer, 588 N.W.2d 913 (1999 S.D. 17) (jurisdiction and review under certiorari)
- Armstrong v. Turner Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 772 N.W.2d 643 (2009 S.D. 81) (limitations on review of board actions under certiorari)