Caseflicks

South Dakota Supreme Court • 1997

Cary v. City of Rapid City

1997 SD 18 | 559 N.W.2d 891 | 1997 S.D. LEXIS 22

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that neighboring landowners cannot receive unchecked, final veto power over a city-approved rezoning ordinance; such a standardless and unreviewable delegation of zoning authority is unconstitutional.

Background

Jane Cary owned land in southwestern Rapid City that was annexed into the City in 1992. After annexation, the land received a substantial street assessment and its annual property taxes rose sharply, although Cary continued using it as a horse pasture that generated only minimal rental income. The City initially zoned the property for general agriculture, intending that classification to permit agricultural use until development was proposed.

In 1995, Cary sought to sell the land to buyers who planned to construct apartments. Their offer was contingent on rezoning the property to medium-density residential, the least intensive classification they considered economically viable. Cary complied with the rezoning requirements, City departments recommended approval, and the City enacted Ordinance 3224 approving the rezoning.

Before the ordinance's effective date, neighboring owners filed a written protest under SDCL 11-4-5. Although the protesters owned less than eighteen percent of the neighboring land, they represented more than forty percent of the neighboring property owners. The statute provided that a qualifying protest prevented the rezoning ordinance from taking effect.

Cary sought declaratory and mandamus relief, arguing that the ordinance was effective and that SDCL 11-4-5 either did not apply or was unconstitutional. The circuit court upheld the statute and ruled against Cary. The Supreme Court reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether SDCL 11-4-5 is properly characterized as a consent statute or a protest statute.

Holding

SDCL 11-4-5 is a protest statute, not a consent statute.

Reasoning

The Court rejected the characterization adopted in State Theatre Co. v. Smith, which had treated SDCL 11-4-5 as a consent statute. The statutory text permits neighboring owners to file a written protest after the governing body has adopted a rezoning ordinance; if the protest meets the statutory threshold, the ordinance does not become effective. That is the operation of a reactive protest mechanism, not a requirement of advance consent.

The Court read SDCL 11-4-5 alongside SDCL 11-4-9. Section 11-4-9 expressly authorizes a municipality, in its discretion, to require written consent from affected owners before a proposed zoning ordinance is introduced. By using express consent language in section 11-4-9 but protest language in section 11-4-5, the Legislature created two distinct methods of limiting rezoning. This statutory contrast showed that section 11-4-5 was intended to be a protest statute.

Issue #2

Whether SDCL 11-4-5 unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to neighboring property owners.

Holding

Yes. SDCL 11-4-5 is unconstitutional because it gives neighboring owners final power to defeat an enacted rezoning ordinance without standards, guidelines, or legislative review.

Reasoning

The Court began with the strong presumption that statutes are constitutional and recognized Cary's burden to prove unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. But legislative power is vested in the Legislature under the South Dakota Constitution, and police-power authority delegated to private persons must be constrained by meaningful standards and guidelines.

Zoning is an exercise of legislative police power because it regulates land use in the public interest. Yet SDCL 11-4-5 allowed the requisite number of neighboring owners to block an already enacted rezoning merely by filing a written protest. The statute supplied no standards to guide that decision, no requirement that protesters state reasons, and no safeguard against decisions driven by private preference, caprice, or self-interest.

The statute also lacked a legislative bypass or review mechanism. Once a qualifying protest was filed, the ordinance simply could not take effect; the City had no power to reconsider the protest or override it through a further legislative vote. Thus, a minority of nearby owners could make the final determination about the public interest in land use, even though that determination belongs to the legislative body.

This arrangement impermissibly allowed private property owners to hold another owner's lawful use of land hostage to their own unreviewable choices. Because it delegated final governmental power without standards or an opportunity for legislative review, it violated due process and constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative authority. The Court expressly overruled State Theatre to the extent it upheld the statute. Having held the statute unconstitutional, the Court did not reach Cary's separate argument that the statute did not apply to her property.