## Facts

- A developer owned a 240-acre tract within the City of Spearfish’s extraterritorial jurisdiction in Lawrence County, zoned A-1 (general agriculture).
- The developer sought approval for a planned unit development (planned residential development) for approximately 80–90 clustered dwelling units, with remaining land designated as open/green space.
- The Spearfish ETJ Planning Commission approved the PUD, and the Spearfish City Council and Lawrence County Board of Commissioners also approved it under the ETJ zoning framework.
- Neighboring landowners objected, citing concerns such as density, traffic, and preservation of rural character.
- The objectors appealed; the circuit court concluded the planned-residential-development ordinance was ambiguous and that the approving bodies exceeded their authority, and it set aside the approvals.
- The developer and governmental entities appealed to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.

## Issues

1. Whether the planned-residential-development ordinance clearly authorized approval of a higher-density residential PUD within the A-1 agricultural zoning district.
2. Whether the Planning Commission, City Council, and County Commission exceeded their statutory and ordinance-based authority by approving the PUD without a clearly authorized mechanism (such as rezoning) and governing standards.
3. How courts should treat a local agency’s interpretation of its own zoning ordinance when the interpretation expands asserted zoning authority.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court.
- The Court held the planned-residential-development ordinance was ambiguous as to where PUDs were permitted and what density/approval mechanism applied, and it did not clearly authorize the approved development in the A-1 district.
- The Court held the approving bodies exceeded their authority by effectively permitting a residential intensity not clearly allowed in the agricultural district through the PUD process.
- The PUD approvals were invalid.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning ordinances and delegations of zoning power are construed narrowly; substantial doubt about the existence or extent of delegated authority is resolved against the governmental body asserting it.
- Local planning and zoning entities are limited to powers expressly granted by enabling statutes and by the text of adopted ordinances; they may not enlarge those powers through interpretation.
- A PUD approval process cannot operate as a substitute for rezoning (or comparable legislative change) unless the ordinance clearly authorizes that mechanism and supplies standards governing its use.
- Courts give limited weight to administrative interpretations of local ordinances, but ordinance interpretation remains a judicial function, and courts will not accept an interpretation that conflicts with the ordinance’s language or adds authority not granted.

## Conclusion

Because the ordinance did not clearly authorize the approved planned residential development in an agricultural district and the approving bodies functionally extended their zoning powers beyond what was delegated, the Court affirmed the judgment invalidating the PUD approvals.


Peters v. Spearfish ETJ Planning Comm’n, 567 N.W.2d 880 (S.D. 1997)