Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin October 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 20 <br /> t <br /> In concludingthat it did not have jurisdiction to hear DePolo's PRB-1 pr eenap <br /> tion claim, the Third Circuit acknowledged that its decision "leaves amateur <br /> radio enthusiasts with limited avenues into federal court."The court explained <br /> j that the federal court could have narrowly addressed the gaiestion of preemp- <br /> tion here if DePolo had appealed the ZHBA's decision and stayed the matter in <br /> state court, while his federal claims were resolved. Alternatively, the court <br /> )I noted that the FCC has enforcement powers, and "conferring jurisdiction on <br /> fi the District Courts of the United States `uponapplication of the Attorney Gen- <br /> eral of the United States at the request of the Commission, alleging a failure to <br /> !� comply with or a violation of any of the provisions.' " <br /> i <br /> Standing After city council <br /> ?, affirms planning commission's <br /> decision and grants variance, <br /> area residents appeal <br /> City contends residents are not statutorily <br /> authorized to appeal the city council's <br /> l <br /> variance decision <br /> Citation: Schmidt v. City of Minot, 2016 ND 175, 883 N.W.2d 909 <br /> (N.D. 2016) <br /> NORTH DAKOTA(08/31/16)—This case involved statutory inter- <br /> pretation of statutory provisions pertaining to zoning and variance <br /> procedures, and addressed the issue of whether neighbors had standing <br /> to appeal a city council's variance decision. <br /> The Background/Facts: In August 2014, First Western Bank and <br /> Trust (the "Bank") applied for two variances from Minot City (the <br /> "City") zoning regulations for off-street parking. The City's Planning <br /> { Commission approved the variance application. The City Council later <br /> affirmed the Planning Commission's decision. Subsequently, 16 City <br /> residents (the "Residents") appealed the City Council's approval of the <br /> Bank's application for the variances. The court ruled that the Residents <br /> lacked standing to appeal the City Council's approval of the zoning <br /> variances under North Dakota statutory law—N.D.C.C. §§ 28-34-01 <br /> and 40-47-12. <br /> Under N.D.C.C. §40-47-12, "the proper local authorities of the city" <br /> are "authorized" to "institute'any appropriate action or proceeding" to <br /> restrain, correct,or abate zoning violations if"any building or structure <br /> ©2016 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />