Mertz v. City of Elgin, Grant County
2011 ND 148
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Mertz applied for a fence permit on the edge of his residential lot in Elgin, ND.
- Elgin's city attorney advised the fence would violate seven-foot side-yard setback provisions.
- Elgin city council denied the permit based on the attorney's opinion.
- The district court affirmed the council's denial, concluding the interpretation was reasonable.
- This Court reviews local governing body decisions de novo for law and reviews for arbitrariness, capriciousness, or lack of substantial evidence.
- The ordinance defines a side yard and separately defines a structure; a fence may be deemed a structure under the plain language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fence denial was reasonable interpretation of the ordinances | Mertz argues the fence is not a 'structure' under the ordinance. | Elgin held that a fence is a structure and falls within the seven-foot prohibition. | Elgin's interpretation was reasonable and the denial was not arbitrary. |
| Whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence | Record lacks findings and substantial evidence for denial. | Record shows council relied on the city attorney's opinion and related materials; rationale discernible. | The decision was not arbitrary or unsupported; rationale discernible from the record. |
| Whether signaling to permit applicants is consistent with police powers and legitimate governmental purposes | Ordinances may yield an absurd result if applied uniformly to fences. | Authorities may regulate yard size and structure locations, and the prohibition serves legitimate purposes. | Ordinances are reasonable exercises of police power; no absurdity undermines validity. |
| Whether unequal treatment or prior structures negate validity | Neighbors have structures closer than seven feet; enforcement is inconsistent. | No evidence showing applicability or timing of current ordinances for prior structures. | Record insufficient to show arbitrary denial relative to other structures. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagerott v. Morton Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 2010 ND 32 (ND 2010) (scope of review of local governing body decisions)
- Gowan v. Ward Cnty. Comm’n, 2009 ND 72 (ND 2009) (arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable standard)
- Tibert v. City of Minto, 2006 ND 189 (ND 2006) (reasonableness in discretionary decisions)
- City of Fargo v. Ness, 551 N.W.2d 790 (ND 1996) (interpretation of ordinances; deference to agency interpretation)
- Hentz v. Elma Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 2007 ND 19 (ND 2007) (interpretation of a zoning ordinance; rules of statutory construction)
- Blomdahl v. Blomdahl, 2011 ND 78 (ND 2011) (avoidance of absurd results; extrinsic aids permitted)
- Stutsman Cnty. v. State Historical Soc’y of North Dakota, 371 N.W.2d 321 (ND 1985) (extrinsic aids to interpret statute; avoid absurd results)
- Lee v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau, 1998 ND 218 (ND 1998) (reasonableness in interpreting administrative language)
- Pulkrabek v. Morton Cnty., 389 N.W.2d 609 (ND 1986) (judicial restraint in quasi-judicial decisions)
- Munch v. City of Mott, 311 N.W.2d 17 (ND 1981) (presumption of validity of ordinances; reasonable relation to governmental purpose)
- Eck v. City of Bismarck, 283 N.W.2d 193 (ND 1979) (reasonableness and police power in zoning ordinances)
- Ness (City of Fargo v.), 551 N.W.2d 790 (ND 1996) (repeat citation for emphasis on interpretation)
- Hagerott v. Morton Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 2010 ND 32 (ND 2010) (see above)
- Gowan v. Ward Cnty. Comm’n, 2009 ND 72 (ND 2009) (see above)