Schmidt v. City of Minot
2016 ND 175
| N.D. | 2016Background
- First Western Bank applied in 2014 for two variances from Minot zoning: reduce required parking spaces and narrow parking-space width.
- Minot Planning Commission approved the variances after public hearings; City Council affirmed the Planning Commission’s decision.
- Sixteen neighboring residents appealed the City Council’s approval to the Ward County district court, claiming the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by evidence.
- District court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing, relying on N.D.C.C. § 40-47-12 and concluded Minot’s ordinances did not confer citizen standing to appeal.
- On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, the Court held § 40-47-12 did not apply but found the residents still lacked statutory authority to appeal under N.D.C.C. § 40-47-11 because they were not “aggrieved applicants.”
- Result: Supreme Court affirmed dismissal; Justice Kapsner dissented, arguing Munch v. City of Mott reasoning should permit citizen standing under Minot’s ordinances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 40-47-12 authorizes residents to appeal the City Council’s variance decision | Residents: § 40-47-12 shouldn’t apply; they’re not bringing an enforcement action and Minot ordinances grant broader standing | City: Minot’s home-rule ordinances don’t create a private right to enforce; § 40-47-12 limits standing to local authorities | Court: § 40-47-12 does not apply to this appeal; district court erred in relying on it |
| Whether residents qualify as "aggrieved applicants" under § 40-47-11 to appeal a variance decision to district court | Residents: Planning Commission acted as board of adjustment or lacked authority, so residents can appeal under § 40-47-11 | City: Planning Commission was not a board of adjustment; § 40-47-11’s appeal route does not apply; City Council decision is final | Court: Residents are not "aggrieved applicants" as that term refers to the variance applicant; therefore no statutory right to appeal under § 40-47-11 |
| Whether Munch v. City of Mott allows local ordinances to broaden standing to permit residents’ appeal here | Residents (and dissent): Munch permits cities to expand standing via ordinance to promote enforcement and welfare | City: Munch dealt with § 40-47-12 enforcement suits, not § 40-47-11 appellate route | Court: Munch’s rationale doesn’t extend to § 40-47-11 appeals; it addressed enforcement standing under § 40-47-12 |
| Whether denying appeal raises a constitutional right to an appeal | Residents: construing § 40-47-11 narrowly may raise constitutional concerns | City: No constitutional right to appeal | Court: There is no constitutional right to an appeal; statutory authorization is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Munch v. City of Mott, 311 N.W.2d 17 (N.D. 1981) (upheld city ordinance broadening citizen standing to enforce zoning under § 40-47-12)
- Rudnick v. City of Jamestown, 463 N.W.2d 632 (N.D. 1990) (defining appellate jurisdiction as power to review another tribunal)
- Sanders v. Gravel Prods., Inc., 755 N.W.2d 826 (N.D. 2008) (affirming correct result may stand despite wrong district court reasoning)
- State v. Causer, 678 N.W.2d 552 (N.D. 2004) (recognizing there is no constitutional right to an appeal)