Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Animal Feeding Operations
Appellate Court Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction
to Hear CAFO Permit Appeals
Eric H. FoyNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In In re Yankton County Commission, 670 N.W.2d 34 (S.D. 2003), the Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the circuit court's decision that affirmed the issuance of a building permit to a farmer under certain conditions. The Supreme Court of South Dakota held that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the appealing taxpayers failed to take the appeal from the Board of Adjustment to the circuit court as directed by South Dakota Codified Law § 11-2-61.
Background
Ryken owned a feedlot and sale barn collectively called the Yankton Livestock Market. Id. at 35. He applied for a building permit after the county had adopted a temporary zoning ordinance. Id. The permit was granted; however, Larson, a local taxpayer, appealed the decision to the Yankton County Board of Adjustment. Id. The Board of Adjustment upheld the permit. Id. In response, rather than appealing the Board of Adjustment's decision to the circuit court in accordance with South Dakota Codified Law 11-2-61 (2000), Larson appealed the decision to the Yankton County Commission pursuant to the temporary zoning ordinance. Id. After losing his appeal with the county commission, Larson was joined by several other taxpayers to petition the state's county attorney to appeal the Commission's decision to circuit court. The county attorney appealed to the circuit court, the court assumed jurisdiction over the matter, and the court affirmed the issuance of the permit under certain conditions. Id. Both sides appealed. Id.
Arguments
Both the taxpayers and Yankton Livestock raised three issues each on appeal; however, because the court ruled exclusively on the jurisdictional issue, the court did not substantially address the other arguments. Id. at 37.
Analysis and Holdings
Because the court held that the method of appealing a Board of Adjustment decision in South Dakota Codified Law 11-2-61 pre-empted review by the county commission under the temporary zoning order, the court only addressed jurisdiction. Id. at 35. As to jurisdiction, the court held that Larson's appeal to the county commission, under the temporary zoning order, was pre-empted; therefore, the permit issue was not properly before the county commission. Id. As a result, the circuit court also lacked jurisdiction to hear Larson's appeal. Id.
The case was decided on September 10, 2003.