Court Opinion

ID: 9734726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:44:26.609595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:50.838712
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
dissenting.
Although I agree that a city ordinance which confers enforcement standing upon any affected citizen or property owner is valid, I cannot agree with the entire majority opinion.
I disagree with that portion of the majority opinion which concludes that any anhydrous ammonia storage facility is a conditional use rather than a permitted use under the Mott ordinance. If a facility such as this is a chemical fertilizer plant, then what is the plant called that actually makes the fertilizer, as opposed to merely storing and dispensing it? The placement in the ordinance of chemical fertilizer plants as conditional uses along with coal gasification plants, electrical power generating plants, and refineries leads me to a conclusion that the governing body enacting the ordinance contemplated something more than the storage and dispensing of a chemical fertilizer to constitute a chemical fertilizer plant.
Concededly the ordinance is ambiguous; but it is in just such an instance that the courts should defer to the judgment of the body that drafted the ordinance rather than substituting their judgment for that of the enacting body. See, e. g., Walker v. Weilenman, 143 N.W.2d 689 (N.D.1966).
I believe the city governing body was within its authority in considering the anhydrous ammonia facility a permitted use under the ordinance. The procedure followed by the City in issuing its permit was not, therefore, improper under the terms of the ordinance. I would reverse the judgment of the district court.