Court Opinion

ID: 9835846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 02:44:18.907712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:09.698480
License: Public Domain

KAPSNER,
Justice, dissenting.
[¶-24] respectfully dissent. ■
[¶ 25] I do not believe that this Court can duck the issues here. I agree with the majority opinion that the district court was incorrect when it held the appellants do not have standing under N.D.C.C. § 40-47-12. I do not agree with the analysis of the majority opinion under N.D.C.C. § 40-47-11. Unless we are willing to say that the reasoning this Court applied, in Munch v. City of Mott, 311 N.W.2d 17 (N.D.1981) was invalid as a general principle, I believe the same reasoning must be applied to N.D.C.C. § 40-47-11, and the ordinances of the City of Minot, to recognize the standing of appellants under N.D.C.C. § 40-47-1Í to, appeal the decision of the City of Minot.
[¶ 26] In Munch v. City of Mott, this Court did not limit standing to the strict words of the statute, which gave standing only to “proper local authorities” to bring action to restrain a violation of local ordinances. Instead, we recognized the local ordinances of Mott broadened standing by giving the right to bring action to “any affected citizen or property owner.” In so holding, this Court stated:
*916Cities are creatures of statute and their powers or authorities must be derived from legislative authorization. Roeders v. City of Washburn, 298 N.W.2d 779, 782 (N.D.1980). Section 40-47-91, NDCC, authorizes cities to adopt zoning regulations for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community. Pursuant to this authorization, the City of Mott adopted a coinprehensive zoning ordinance to fit its particular needs. Section 5.2.2 of this ordinance confers standing upon “any affected citizen or property owner” to secure enforcement of the Mott zoning ordinances. The authority to institute action to restrain, correct, or abate zoning violations is governed by § 40-47-12, NDCC, which provides in part that- “proper local authorities of the city, in addition to other remedies, may institute any appropriate action or proceeding.” Hertz contends that conferring standing upon “any affected citizen or property owner” exceeds the City’s statutory authorization. This argument is without merit. Section 40-47-12 must be read in conjunction with § 40-47-04, NDCC, which specifically allows cities to provide for the manner in which zoning regulations shall be enforced. A city’s zoning power is dependent on authority delegated from the State, but these powers need not always be explicitly listed in the statute. A city is given its powers by specific grant and by implication therefrom. City of Fargo, Cass Cty. v. Harwood Tp., 256 N.W.2d 694, 697 (N.D.1977).
It is clearly within the prerogative of the local authorities to' determine the means and methods • for enforcing a city’s zoning ordinances as long as the city’s actions remain compatible with the spirit of the State legislation. See, Ujka v. Sturdevant, 65 N.W.2d 292 (N.D. 1954), The mere fact that § 40-47-12, NDCC, confers standing, only upon “proper local authorities” does not preclude the City of Mott from allowing “affected and interested citizens” the right to secure the enforcement of its zoning ordinances. Mott’s extension of the standing requirements is compatible with the stated purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community.
Munch, 311 N.W.2d at 20-21 (footnotes omitted).
[¶27] Similar to Mott ordinances, the Minot ordinances have broadened standing to appeal:
a) At any time within thirty (30) days ‘after, the City Planner, or other city employee or committee makes a deci-
■ sion under the provisions of this title, except in connection with prosecution for-violations thereof, the applicant or other persons .affected thereby may appeal the decision by filing a written notice stating the action appealed from and stating the specific grounds upon which the appeal is made.
b) The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the appeal and make a recommendation to the City Council.
c) The City Council shall conduct a public hearing and make the final determination. Final decision shall be by majority vote of the City Council.
d) Notice of the hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council shall be mailed to all appellants. In all cases involving determination of the district boundary lines, or interpretation of the text of this title, ten (10) days published notice of hearing in the official newspaper shall be givep.
Minot, N.D. Zoning Ordinance. § 30-6(a)~ (d) (emphasis added).
[¶ 28] The authority granted by N.D.C.C. § 40-47-04, which “specifically allows cities to provide for the manner in *917which zoning regulations shall, be enforced” which this Court recognized in Munch, has not been changed. There is no principled way to impose a limitation under N.D.C.C. § 40-47-11, contrary to the ordinances of Minot, that this Court Sid not impose under N.D.C.C. § 40-47-12 where the statute only, gave standing to “proper local authorities,” but the ordinances of Mott gave standing to “any affected citizen or property owner.”
[¶29] The majority opinion does not overrule Munch v. City of Mott Unless this Court does so, I would reverse and direct the district court to address the appeal.
[¶ 30] CAROL RONNING KAPSNER