Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/2017

Home

-- f October 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 20 Zoning Bulletin i is erected constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired, converted, or maintained, or . . . used in violation of zoning laws. Also, N.D.C.C. §40-47-11(1) authorizes review of a board of adjustment decision and provides a board of adjustment decision may be appealed to the govern- ing body of the city"by either the aggrieved applicant or by any officer, department, board, or bureau of the city." Under N.D.C.C. § 40-47- 11(2),"[a] decision of the governing body of the city on an appeal from a decision of the board of adjustment may be appealed to the district court in the manner provided"by N.D.C.C. § 28-34-01. The court explained that the City had not adopted an ordinance conferring standing on citizens to appeal a City Council decision to the t district court under N.D.C.C. § 40-47-12, and that the Residents' appeal did not involve the City Council's review of a board of adjustment deci- sion under N.D.C.C. § 40-47-11. (Rather, the City Council's review here was of a Planning Commission decision).Thus,finding the statutes provided no avenue of standing for the Residents here, the court dismissed the Residents' appeal and denied their request for reconsideration. The Residents appealed:They argued that they did have standing to appeal the City Council's approval of the zoning variances here. They argued that N.D.C.C. § 40-47-12 did not apply to their case because their appeal was not an action or proceeding to restrain,correct,or abate a zoning violation.They claimed instead that the Planning Commission was acting as a board of adjustment in granting the variances, and that the Residents had a right to appeal the City Council decision affirming the Planning Commission's decision (made as it was acting as a board of adjustment) under N.D.C.C. §§ 28-34-01 and 40-47-11. They also claimed that if the Planning Commission was not acting as a board of - adjustment, the Planning Commission had no authority to grant vari- ances and the variances were void. In other words, they argued that the City could not delegate a board of adjustment's functions to a planning commission in order to deprive Residents of the legislatively created right to appeal a board of adjustment's variance decision. The City maintained that the Planning Commission was not acting as a board of adjustment in granting the variances,and noted that the statu- tory procedure authorizing an appeal of a board of adjustment did not apply to the planning commission decision. The City claimed that its home rule ordinances did not provide for a board of adjustment and thus did not incorporate the statutory provisions pertaining to appeals form variance decisions by a board of adjustment. Therefore, the City contended that the City Council's variance decision was final and not appealable. DECISION:Affirmed. The Supreme Court of North Dakota first agreed with the Residents 10 ©2016 Thomson Reuters F f. F r _... i i.