Court Opinion

ID: 9724498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:58:53.949003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:01.342907
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
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.:
“First: Is the Ward County Zoning Resolution Number 1 unconstitutional and void because the restrictions and limitations placed on the land does not bear a reasonable relationship to the public interest for which zoning may be exercised ?”
The second issue, e. g.:
“Second: Was the action of the Ward County Commissioners in denying the petition unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory and therefore illegal ?”
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:
“It does not contemplate that these questions are to be determined by popular vote, or by petition, or by remonstrance. The statute imposes upon the board itself the duty of passing upon these questions. It alone is made responsible. The board, of course, may consider petitions or remonstrances, if it sees fit to do so; but it is not bound thereby.”
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, ERICK-STAD, and TEIGEN, JJ., concur.