Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />Malrn"e appealed the board's decision to court. The court affumed the <br />board's decision, concluding that the city had the authority to enforce its <br />property ordinances ui"1der the aclrnillistrative enforcement program and <br />that the board's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. <br />Malrne appealed, arguing that the three-member tribunal that had <br />denied his appeal and enforced a fine was illegal. <br /> <br />Decision: Decision of lower court reversed. <br /> <br />On appeal, Malme argued that the! city's use of a three-member lay- <br />person board to adjudicate ordinance violations conflicted with state <br />law, which required a "municipal judge witbin a cityhavJ...."1.g a popula- <br />tion of five thousand or more [to be] licensed to practice iaw in this <br />state, unless no person so licensed is available in the city." None of the <br />members ofthe panel that heard his claim were lavvyers. <br />There were some situations in which a city could enact a zoning reg- <br />ulation that superseded state law, but the court noted that "[w]hatever <br />powers a...city may have are based upon statutory provisions." Here, <br />the city's charter and state law broaqIy allowed the city the power to: <br />define offenses, provide penalties, and adopt ordinances, resolutions, <br />and regulations to carry out its interests of public health, safety, morals <br />and weJiare. But the court found that: "These provisions. . .did not ad- <br />dress, let alone authorize, the creation of an administrative system for <br />adjudication of alleged violations of ordinances or regulations enacted <br />by the municipality as an alternative to municipal court." <br />The city argued that it had an "inherent authority" t...nat "necessar- <br />ily include[d] the ability to further delegate authority to administrative <br />bodies and boards," but the COllie found the power granted to the ad- <br />ministrative enforcement board conflicted with state law requiring a <br />municipal judge to "hear, try, and determine offenses against the ordi- <br />nances of the city." <br />Because the city exceeded its authority by creating the layperson <br />board, the alleged violations, decision, and fine imposed by. the board <br />was voided. The case was returned to the lower court with an order to <br />vacate the decision of the board. <br /> <br />See also: Litten v. City of Fargo, 294 N. W.2d 628 (N.D. 1980). <br /> <br />Editorial Qu~stioris'or Comments: w.est;q;\!!imlan'@tbom.soll.c()~.'.,f;."': <br /> <br />-- -_-...-- <br />. --~ .---.----.--- <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />58 <br />