Dakota Resource Council v. Stark County Board of County Commissioners
817 N.W.2d 373
N.D.2012Background
- Great Northern planned an 8,100-acre Stark County industrial complex including coal gasification, fertilizer, power, mine, landfill, and hazardous material facilities.
- Great Northern sought to rezone the tract from agricultural to industrial and to allow nine conditional uses under the Stark County Zoning Ordinance.
- Notice of the hearing was mailed by certified mail to landowners within 200 feet as required by Section 9.05(4)(c) of the Zoning Ordinance.
- Board approved the rezoning and conditional uses, subject to express conditions including obtaining all local, state, and federal permits for the coal mine.
- The Dakota Resource Council and other nearby landowners appealed to district court; the district court initially found standing but affirmed the Board’s decision on the merits.
- On cross-appeal, the Board and Great Northern challenged whether the Council had standing; the court held the Council had associational standing because some members were aggrieved by the decision and had 200-foot notice interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Council has associational standing to appeal | Council members Kudrna had standing individually; organization standing should attach | Council members lacked individual standing to appeal | Council has associational standing |
| Whether the Board misinterpreted the zoning ordinance | Board misapplied §6.10 and related notice/permit requirements | Board’s interpretation reasonable and consistent with the ordinance | Board did not misinterpret or misapply the zoning ordinance |
| Whether the conditional use permit triggers §6.10-A land disturbance requirements | Conditional use serves as land disturbance permit per §3.04 | §3.04 does not render §6.10-A applicable at this stage | Board’s interpretation reasonable; §6.10-A to apply when land disturbance permit sought elsewhere |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagerott v. Morton Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 2010 ND 32 (ND 2010) (aggrieved standing and injury to land interests)
- Nodak Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward Cnty. Farm Bureau, 2004 ND 60 (ND 2004) (elements of associational standing)
- Peterson v. State, 2011 ND 87 (ND 2011) (associational standing requirements reaffirmed)
- Tibert v. City of Minto, 2006 ND 189 (ND 2006) (limited de novo standard of review for local decisions)
- Mertz v. City of Elgin, 2011 ND 148 (ND 2011) (deferential review of agency interpretations of ordinances)
- Gowan v. Ward Cnty. Comm’n, 2009 ND 72 (ND 2009) (scope of review for local governing body decisions)