#25045-a-JKK
2009 SD 61
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
DONALD ANDERSEN and
SHIRLEY ANDERSEN, Petitioners and Appellants,
v.
TOWN OF BADGER (a municipal
corporation under the laws of the
State of South Dakota), Respondents and Appellees.
* * * *
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
KINGSBURY COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
HONORABLE TIM D. TUCKER
Judge
* * * *
A. J. SWANSON Attorney for petitioners
Canton, South Dakota and appellants.
TODD D. WILKINSON of
Wilkinson & Wilkinson Attorneys for respondents
DeSmet, South Dakota and appellees.
* * * *
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON APRIL 27, 2009
OPINION FILED 07/15/09
#25045
KONENKAMP, Justice
[¶1.] A Kingsbury County zoning ordinance governing the location of
concentrated animal feeding operations allows local incorporated communities an
option to waive distance requirements for a feeding operation. Seeking to construct
such a facility near the Town of Badger, a businessperson requested that the town
waive the distance requirement, and the town’s board of trustees agreed. Certain
residents of the town petitioned the circuit court for a writ of certiorari challenging
the town’s power to execute a waiver. The court denied the writ, concluding that
the Town of Badger had such power. Petitioners appeal, and we affirm.
Background
[¶2.] Petitioners Donald and Shirley Andersen are residents of the Town of
Badger, in Kingsbury County. Under one of the county’s zoning ordinances, a Class
A concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) cannot be situated closer than four
miles from buildings within incorporated municipal areas, plus 440 feet for each
additional 1,000 animal units over 1,000. This distance restriction is commonly
referred to as the required separation distance, or RSD. The county allowed for
exceptions. The exception applicable to this case permits a CAFO to be “constructed
or expanded closer than the required separation distance within the corporate
limits of a city,” as long as “the incorporated community approves a waiver which
shall be stated in writing.” Such waiver “becomes effective only after recording with
the Register of Deeds.”
[¶3.] Richard Vendrig requested a permit from Kingsbury County to build a
Class A CAFO at a location about two miles southwest of the Town of Badger.
-1-
#25045
Vendrig sought a waiver of the RSD from the town. Badger is a class three
municipality, governed by a board of trustees. At the time Vendrig requested the
waiver, the board members were Myron Andersen, Curt Holland, and Daniel
Waldner. On July 21, 2008, a quorum of the town’s board adopted a motion to grant
Vendrig the waiver. The board’s motion was issued by legal publication on August
7, 2008. On September 15, 2008, Myron Andersen, on behalf of the Town of Badger,
executed a document in favor of Vendrig entitled “Waiver of Separation Distance
Requirement.”
[¶4.] On September 5, 2008, petitioners sought a writ of certiorari in circuit
court. They argued that the town had no authority to give a waiver in Vendrig’s
favor. The court held a non-evidentiary hearing and concluded that the Town of
Badger had the power to execute the waiver. The writ was denied. Petitioners
appeal arguing that the court abused its discretion when it refused to issue the writ
and erred when it concluded that the town had the authority to adopt the waiver. *
Analysis and Decision
[¶5.] The only question for us to consider here is whether the Town of
Badger acted without or exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the waiver in favor of
Vendrig under the Kingsbury County zoning ordinance. See Cole v. Bd. of
Adjustment of City of Huron, 1999 SD 54, ¶10, 592 NW2d 175, 177 (citing Hamerly
* When a matter is presented on certiorari, our review is “limited to the
questions of whether the inferior courts, officers, boards, and tribunals had
jurisdiction and whether they have regularly pursued the authority conferred
upon them.” Cole v. Bd. of Adjustment of City of Huron, 1999 SD 54, ¶4, 592
NW2d 175, 176 (quoting Peters v. Spearfish ETJ Planning Comm’n, 1997 SD
105, ¶6, 567 NW2d 880, 883) (additional citation omitted).
-2-
#25045
v. City of Lennox Bd. of Adjustment, 1998 SD 43, ¶14, 578 NW2d 566, 569; Willard
v. Civil Serv. Bd. of Sioux Falls, 75 SD 297, 300, 63 NW2d 801, 802 (1954); Kirby v.
Circuit Court of McCook County, 10 SD 38, 40, 71 NW 140, 141 (1897)).
[¶6.] Petitioners do not challenge Kingsbury County’s authority to draft a
zoning ordinance setting forth certain RSDs for CAFOs. They contend, however,
that merely because the county’s zoning ordinance gave the Town of Badger the
power to waive the RSD does not mean that the town had the legal authority to do
so. Petitioners maintain that absent a grant of authority from the Legislature, the
town does not have the power to act under Kingsbury County’s zoning ordinance.
[¶7.] The Town of Badger bases its authority to execute the waiver on
certain language in SDCL 11-4-1. This statute provides:
For the purpose of promoting health, safety, or the general
welfare of the community the governing body of any municipality
may regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size
of buildings and other structures; the percentage of lot that may
be occupied; the size of the yards, courts, and other open spaces;
the density of population; and the location and use of buildings,
structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, flood plain, or
other purposes. A municipality may enter into an agreement
with any landowner specifying the conditions under which the
landowner’s property may be developed.
Id. (emphasis added). Relying on a municipality’s power to regulate, the town
contends that it had the authority to execute the waiver under Kingsbury County’s
zoning ordinance.
[¶8.] We do not believe the Town of Badger had the authority to execute the
waiver in question under SDCL 11-4-1. SDCL chapter 11-4 relates to municipal
power to plan and zone. In fact, “[i]n order to avail itself of the powers conferred by
this chapter, the governing body [must] appoint a commission to be known as the
-3-
#25045
planning and zoning commission to recommend the boundaries of the zoning
districts and appropriate regulations to be enforced therein.” SDCL 11-4-11.
Therefore, we cannot conclude that, based on the language of SDCL 11-4-1, the
Town of Badger had broad regulatory and police powers to execute the waiver in
question.
[¶9.] On the other hand, SDCL 9-12-1(1) gives “[e]very municipality” the
power “to contract in its corporate name[.]” Here, Kingsbury County enacted a
zoning plan for the county, which includes the area within the city limits of the
Town of Badger. In this zoning plan is an ordinance that gives an incorporated
community the right to waive certain RSDs for a CAFO, when a proposed CAFO
location violates Kingsbury County’s zoning requirements. It is important to note
that Vendrig’s CAFO will not be constructed within the Town of Badger’s city
limits. Moreover, the town is not asserting a right to regulate or restrict the
location of the CAFO because of a town-enacted zoning ordinance. Rather, the town
acted based on an option given to it by the county. Because SDCL 9-12-1 gives a
municipality the power to contract, and the Kingsbury County ordinance gave the
Town of Badger the option to determine whether a waiver should be executed, we
conclude that the town had the authority to waive the RSD under the Kingsbury
County zoning ordinance. The circuit court did not err in denying the writ.
[¶10.] Affirmed.
[¶11.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and ZINTER, MEIERHENRY, and
SEVERSON, Justices, concur.
-4-