Coyote Flats v. Sanborn County Com'n, 20665.

• Decision Date: 14 July 1999
• Docket Number: No. 20665.,20665.
• Citation: 596 N.W.2d 347,1999 SD 87
• Parties: COYOTE FLATS, L.L.C., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SANBORN COUNTY COMMISSION, Sanborn County, South Dakota, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

596 N.W.2d 347

1999 SD 87

COYOTE FLATS, L.L.C., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SANBORN COUNTY COMMISSION, Sanborn County, South Dakota, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 20665.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Argued April 27, 1999.

Decided July 14, 1999.

Mark V. Meierhenry of Danforth, Meierhenry & Meierhenry, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellee.

Jeffrey D. Larson, Sanborn County State's Attorney, Woonsocket, and James G. Abourezk, Special Deputy State's Attorney, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant.

GILBERTSON, Justice.

[¶ 1.] County Commission appeals the final order of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Sanborn County. The trial court reversed and remanded the Commission's decision and ordered the Commission to meet as a planning commission and to approve a special use permit for Coyote Flats, L.L.C. (Coyote Flats), to operate a commercial hog feedlot. The Commission appeals. We reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

[¶ 2.] In the spring of 1997, the Sanborn County Board of Commissioners¹ received an application from Coyote Flats for a special use permit to construct a hog confinement unit that would contain approximately 6,000 hogs. At the same time the Commissioners attempted to enact new county ordinances to amend the existing county zoning ordinance. The amendments dealt with requirements for animal confinement units.

[¶ 3.] Based on the new ordinances, the Commission denied the permit application of Coyote Flats. Coyote Flats appealed to the circuit court, which struck down the new ordinances as not properly enacted. It then remanded the permit issue to the Commission to consider the application under the existing county ordinance that had been in effect since the early 1970's.

[¶ 4.] On remand, a hearing before the Commission was held on April 7, 1998. Coyote Flats was again denied the special use permit. The Commission found the proposed facility would create significant odor, increase traffic and additional trucks would damage roads and cause the inevitable loss in value of the neighboring land. It concluded the facility would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the people residing in the area near the proposed site and would be a nuisance. Coyote Flats again appealed to the circuit court.

[¶ 5.] The circuit court found the Commission's decision to be arbitrary and capricious. The court remanded the case back to the Commission. It further ordered the Commission to meet as a planning commission and approve the special use permit. [¶ 6.] The Commission appeals raising several issues, one of which is dispositive:

Whether the trial court erred in its ruling the Commission's denial of a special use permit was "arbitrary and capricious."²

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 7.] SDCL 7-8-30 provides an appeal from a decision of a county commission shall be heard and determined by the circuit court de novo. In Schrank v. Pennington County Bd. of Comm'rs, 1998 SD 108, ¶ 15, 584 N.W.2d 680, 682, we concluded "this standard means `the circuit court should determine anew the question ... independent of the county commissioner's decision."`³ As such:

When we review such actions of a board of county commissioners after an appeal to the circuit court, we apply the clearly erroneous standard to factual findings, but accord no deference to the legal conclusions of the circuit court.

Gregoire v. Iverson, 1996 SD 77, ¶ 14, 551 N.W.2d 568, 570 (citing Tri County Landfill Ass'n v. Brule County, 535 N.W.2d 760, 763 (S.D.1995)).

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

[¶ 8.] Before we proceed on the merits of this case we must review a procedural issue that has been raised by Coyote Flats. That procedural issue is the burden of proof before the circuit court. Coyote Flats argues on an appeal to the circuit court, the Commission has the burden of proof. This is incorrect. It is well established on an appeal from the zoning commission, the party appealing has the burden of proof before the circuit court. See Chokecherry Hills Estates, Inc. v. Deuel County, 294 N.W.2d 654, 656 (S.D.1980) (appellant must meet the burden in a challenge to the application of a zoning ordinance); see also City of Madison v. Clarke, 288 N.W.2d 312, 314 (S.D.1980) (person appealing from the board of adjustment has to meet the burden of proof); cf. Fortier v. City of Spearfish, 433 N.W.2d 228, 230-31 (S.D.1988) (party attacking zoning ordinance carries the burden of overcoming the ordinance's presumption of validity); City of Colton v. Corbly, 323 N.W.2d 138, 139 (S.D.1982) ("One assailing the validity of a zoning ordinance has the burden of overcoming this presumption of validity and must show that the ordinance is unreasonable and arbitrary."). That assailing party was Coyote Flats, and therefore it had the burden of proof.

[¶ 9.] As to the issue on the merits, under SDCL ch 11-2, the South Dakota Legislature has created an entity called a county planning commission. SDCL 11-2-2. The planning commission has been authorized to prepare a comprehensive plan⁴ for the County. SDCL 11-2-11. Zoning ordinances⁵ and other controls deemed necessary are included as adjunct to and in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Id. Sanborn County adopted its comprehensive plan in the 1970's. The ordinances passed in accordance with the comprehensive plan and their application are at issue in this case.

[¶ 10.] Under the Sanborn County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations each land use must be in conformity with the regulations specified for the district in which it is located. For example, if the district is zoned residential, any operation must be in conformity with the requirements of a residential district. Agricultural land is exempt from mandatory conformity with district requirements, with the exception of commercial feedlots.⁶

[¶ 11.] The area where Coyote Flats proposed to locate its feedlot is zoned an agricultural district under Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance.⁷ Under this same subsection even if a proposed commercial feedlot would be located in an agricultural zoned district, the applicant must obtain a special use permit from the county.⁸

[¶ 12.] a. Arbitrary and Capricious

[¶ 13.] The trial court concluded the Commission's denial of Coyote Flats' special use permit to be arbitrary and capricious. See Stafford v. Pullen, 125 Ind.App. 143, 123 N.E.2d 191, 193 (1954) (allegations of arbitrary or capricious acts are conclusions of law); Cf. Kellogg v. Hoven School Dist. No. 53-2, 479 N.W.2d 147, 149-51 (S.D.1991) (trial court did not err in its conclusion of law that the school board acted arbitrarily and capriciously). This decision was based on an analysis of the provided sections of the comprehensive plan. Under Section 5.14(11), a special use exception must be obtained to build and operate a commercial feedlot. From the ordinance provided in the brief, a "commercial feedlot" is defined as:

A confinement of food or fur-bearing animals, for commercial purposes, in building lots, pens, pools, or ponds which normally are not used for raising crops or grazing animals.

The trial court found the definition to be extremely broad and vague. When attempting to ascertain the scope of the definition, the trial court construed it to possibly include every farming operation in Sanborn County. Considering the claim that no other farming operation in Sanborn County was in compliance with the ordinance and the broad definition of commercial feedlot, the trial court concluded the Commission's denial was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. We find the trial court erred for the reasons detailed below.

[¶ 14.] Our case law provides that an arbitrary and capricious action is:

based on personal, selfish, or fraudulent motives, or on false information, and is characterized by a lack of relevant and competent evidence to support the action taken.

Tri County Landfill, 535 N.W.2d at 764 (citing Hendriks v. Anderson, 522 N.W.2d 499 (S.D.1994); Iversen v. Wall Bd. of Educ., 522 N.W.2d 188 (S.D.1994); Riter v. Woonsocket School Dist., # 55-4, 504 N.W.2d 572 (S.D.1993)).

[¶ 15.] The Commission based its denial of Coyote Flats' conditional use permit on the following findings:

1. The proposed facility was within Elliott Township, a heavily populated area.

2. There will be an increase in large truck traffic at the site and roads will be severely damaged from such traffic.

3. Adjacent properties will be devalued because of the location of this facility.

4. This facility would create air pollution through noxious odors.

5. The potential of water pollution.

[¶ 16.] Despite the fact Coyote Flats carried the burden of proof, there is a near total absence of evidence in the record that would allow the circuit court to label the Commission's findings as arbitrary and capricious. There is no evidence the Commission's action is "based on personal, selfish, or fraudulent motives, or on false information...." Tri County Landfill, 535 N.W.2d at 764. There is no "lack of relevant evidence" in the record brought forth by the Commissioners. Id. Therefore, the Commission's action cannot be labeled arbitrary and capricious. To establish why we find the trial court's legal conclusion of "arbitrary and capricious" to be erroneous, we will discuss the evidence supporting each finding below.

[¶ 17.] i. Population

[¶ 18.] There is ample evidence in the record that supports the Commission's decision that this facility would constitute a nuisance due to its proximity to the neighboring population. First, there is testimony by Charlotte Brewer (Brewer), a resident of the area who lives within a mile from the proposed feedlot. Robert Sonne (Sonne) also testified he lives 0.6 of a mile from the proposed facility. Commissioner Moe testified he considered the establishment of the facility in this particular area to be a nuisance due to the location of Coyote Flats' nearest neighbors. This evidence went unchallenged by Coyote Flats.

[¶ 19.] ii. Roads

[¶ 20.] A fundamental factor...