Dahm v. Stark County Board of County Commissioners
2013 ND 241
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Richard Dahm applied in July 2012 to rezone roughly two miles west of Dickinson from agricultural to residential and to preliminarily plat "Duck Creek Estates": a 99‑lot subdivision adjacent to Maryville Subdivision.
- County planner and the Planning & Zoning Commission identified deficiencies (unspecified residential district, access/road standards, traffic study, wetlands/floodplain delineation and study, potable water, sewer/bridge details) and found inconsistency with the Stark County Comprehensive Plan; the Commission voted 8‑0 to recommend denial.
- The Stark County Board of Commissioners adopted the recommendation and denied Dahm’s zoning amendment and preliminary plat by a 5‑0 vote and imposed a condition barring Dahm from appearing before the Board for six months.
- Dahm appealed to district court, asked to introduce additional evidence (past comparable approvals and alleged conflicts of interest by two commissioners), and claimed the six‑month bar and subsequent ordinance changes effected an unconstitutional taking; the district court denied the motion for additional evidence and affirmed the Board.
- The Supreme Court reviewed under the deferential standard for appeals from local governing bodies (affirm unless action arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial evidence) and affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board’s denial was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable | Dahm: Board failed to adequately consider submitted evidence and re‑weighed against him; he cured deficiencies so approval was mandatory under plat statute | County: Board followed ordinance process, considered planning staff, public input, Comprehensive Plan, and identified legitimate unresolved issues | Held: Denial was not arbitrary or unreasonable; substantial evidence supported decision |
| Whether failure to present evidence below (comparable approvals) required district court to admit additional evidence | Dahm: Past similar subdivisions showed inconsistent treatment and should be admitted | County: Such evidence is immaterial and must have been presented to Board first | Held: District court did not abuse discretion in excluding that evidence |
| Whether alleged conflicts of interest by two commissioners required reversal | Dahm: Commissioners had pecuniary interests in nearby development, biased their vote | County: Issue not raised before Board; votes were unanimous and non‑determinative | Held: Claims were speculative, not presented below; court declined to consider them on appeal |
| Whether six‑month appearance prohibition (and resulting ordinance change) was arbitrary or a taking | Dahm: Six‑month bar and later ordinance change deprive him of reasonable use; unconstitutional taking | County: Bar was reasonable given repeated unresolved submissions; takings claim not cognizable in this appeal | Held: Six‑month prohibition was not arbitrary or unreasonable; takings claim not addressed on this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagerott v. Morton Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 2010 ND 32 (standard limiting relitigation on appeal from county board)
- Grand Forks Hous. Authorities v. Grand Forks Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2010 ND 245 (deferential review: affirm unless action arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence)
- Hector v. City of Fargo, 2009 ND 14 (record adequate if it permits discerning the board’s rationale)
- Pulkrabek v. Morton Cnty., 389 N.W.2d 609 (N.D. 1986) (additional evidence on appeal limited to evidence presented to local body)
- Gowan v. Ward Cnty. Comm’n, 2009 ND 72 (appeal from local governing body cannot be recast as inverse condemnation)
- Klindt v. Pembina Cnty. Water Res. Bd., 2005 ND 106 (disqualification of non‑determinative board member does not nullify proceedings)
- Grand Forks Homes, Inc. v. Grand Forks Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2011 ND 50 (district court’s decision to take additional evidence under § 28‑34‑01(3) is discretionary)