Title: Detlaff v. Board of County Com'rs of Ward County

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

136 N.W.2d 835 (1965) Arnold A. DETLAFF, Harold A. Blume, Hulda O. Blume, C. A. Fredrickson, and Pearl E. Lawrence, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WARD COUNTY, North Dakota, Defendants and Appellants. No. 8211. Supreme Court of North Dakota. September 1, 1965. Rehearing Denied September 29, 1965. *836 Pringle, Herigstad, Meschke, Loder, Mahoney & Purdy, Minot, for plaintiffs and respondents. Richard B. Thomas, State's Atty. of Ward County, Minot, for defendants and appellants. KNUDSON, Judge. The plaintiffs, owners of separate tracts of land in Zoning District No. 1 of Ward County, North Dakota, presented to the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission of Ward County a petition to amend Ward County Zoning Resolution No. 6 to include and rezone as "C-2, Highway Commercial District," under Ward County Zoning Resolution No. 6, an area 680 feet in width adjacent to U. S. Highway No. 83, and lying in the West Half of Section 20, the West Half of Section 17, the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, and the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 157, Range 82 (Tatman Township in Ward County), now included in the area of Zoning District No. 1, and to disconnect and exclude said 680-foot area from Zoning District No. 1. The petition was rejected by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. The plaintiffs appealed to the district court from the decision of the County Commissioners. The district court reversed the action of the County Commissioners, holding Ward County Zoning Resolution No. 1 unconstitutional and directing the Board of County Commissioners to grant the petition to rezone. The defendants appealed from the judgment and demand a trial de novo in this court. The Board of County Commissioners of Ward County, on June 10, 1955, adopted a resolution establishing Zoning District No. 1 of Ward County. The United States Air Force was then establishing an air base in Ward County, and requested the Board of County Commissioners to zone the area in the vicinity of the air base to prevent the construction of undesirable buildings, structures, and businesses, and to prohibit places for large congestions of population. The resolution restricted the use of the land to those incident to farming, prohibited any buildings or structures that could be used for mass meetings (enumerating several such places), "or other housing not incident to farming; or any other building or structures where human lives may be jeopardized by operation of said Air Field." The full text of the resolution reads as follows: The legislative assembly has authorized any county in the state to regulate and restrict the location and use of buildings and structures and the use, condition or occupancy of lands, under Chapter 11-33, North Dakota Century Code, entitled "County Zoning." The Board of County Commissioners of Ward County, pursuant to that chapter, adopted the Resolution Establishing Zoning District No. 1. May the respondents herein challenge the validity of the Ward County Resolution Establishing Zoning District No. 1 as being unconstitutional and void because the restrictions and limitations therein do not bear a reasonable relationship to the public interest for which zoning may be exercised? It is well settled in this State that a person can be heard to question the constitutionality of a statute only when and insofar as it is being, or about to be, applied to his disadvantage. Tooz v. State, 76 N.D. 599, 38 N.W.2d 285, and cases cited. The court in Tooz, quoting from Olson v. Ross, 39 N.D. 372, 167 N.W. 385, said: This rule also applies to resolutions adopted by counties. The respondents have not shown that they have been harmfully affected or placed at a disadvantage by the adoption of the Ward County Resolution Establishing Zoning District No. 1. The application to rezone presented to and denied by the Board of County Commissioners does not set out or describe any of the buildings and structures contemplated by the respondents to be constructed or erected in the zoned area, nor is there any allegation of the type or use of any proposed building or structure prohibited or restricted by the zoning resolution whereby the respondents are harmfully affected or placed at a disadvantage contrary to any constitutional provision, and that a decision on the constitutional question is necessary in order to protect them in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. In Savelkoul v. Board of County Commissioners, N.D., 96 N.W.2d 394, wherein we held that the construction of an automobile service station was not within the inhibition of Section II of the Resolution Establishing Zoning District No. 1, since such a service station could not be considered that it can be used for "mass meetings," or that it is a place or building where people will congregate in large numbers, this court said (quoting from the Syllabus by the Court): The zoning resolution does not prohibit the construction and erection of all types and kinds of buildings and structures in the zoned area, but, in fact, does provide regulations and restrictions therefor under Section II for structural occupancy, Section III for types of structures, and Section IV for building permits. The respondents have not followed the procedure provided in the zoning resolution for a building permit, and until such application for a building permit has been presented to and rejected by the Board of County Commissioners the respondents cannot say that they have been harmed or adversely affected by the particular feature of the resolution alleged to be in conflict with the Constitution. The judgment of the district court is reversed. BURKE, C. J., and ERICKSTAD, STRUTZ, and TEIGEN, JJ., concur. KNUDSON, Judge. The plaintiffs have petitioned for a rehearing upon the ground that the Court failed to review both of the issues on which the trial court found for the respondents. In the original opinion we considered and disposed of the first issue, e. g.: The second issue, e. g.: was not overlooked and was considered by the court, but it was not deemed necessary to pass upon this issue in arriving at a decision in this case. In view of the plaintiffs' request for a review of the second issue considered by the district court we have given further consideration to this issue. The plaintiffs had presented a petition to the Board of County Commissioners requesting that certain lands owned by them be disconnected and excluded from Zoning District No. 1 and be annexed to and included in Ward County Zoning Resolution No. 6, and therein rezoned as "C-2, Highway Commercial District." This petition was denied by the County Commissioners. The statute, Chapter 11-33, N.D.C.C., delegates the power to the Board of County Commissioners, without restriction, to determine the questions of the initiation of proposals for zoning districts, or of changes therein, amendments thereto, or variances thereof. The Court said in Gehrke et al. v. Board of County Commissioners of Divide County et al., 58 N.D. 407, 226 N.W. 536: This was quoted with approval in Ophaug v. Hildre, 77 N.D. 221, 42 N.W.2d 438. A refusal to act on the petition, or a denial thereof, being within the sole discretionary powers of the Board of County Commissioners, is final and is not subject to review. The petition for rehearing is denied. BURKE, C. J., and STRUTZ, ERICKSTAD, and TEIGEN, JJ., concur.