Working Capital 1 v. Quality Auto Body
2012 ND 115
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Great Northern planned an 8,100-acre coal gasification complex in Stark County and sought to rezone from agricultural to industrial with nine conditional uses, including mining.
- The Stark County Zoning Commission held a hearing after notifying landowners within 200 feet by mail, and recommended approval conditioned on permits.
- The Stark County Board of County Commissioners approved the rezoning and the conditional uses, imposing express conditions including obtaining all local, state, and federal permits for the coal mine.
- Dakota Resource Council and others near the rezoned tract appealed to district court under N.D.C.C. §§ 11-33-12, 28-34-01; the district court upheld the Board’s decision on the merits.
- The district court initially found standing for the Council and others, but the Board and Great Northern cross-appealed regarding associational standing and the Board’s interpretation of the zoning ordinance.
- The Supreme Court affirms, holding the Council had associational standing and the Board’s interpretation of the ordinance was reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Council has associational standing to appeal | Council would represent members who would otherwise have standing | Record shows no individual member had standing | Yes; the Council has associational standing |
| Whether any Council member had standing to appeal in their own right | Some members were aggrieved by notice and proximity | No individual member shown as aggrieved | Yes; at least Kudrna owners were aggrieved and thus had standing |
| Whether the Board properly interpreted and applied the zoning ordinance | Board misinterpreted §6.10, §6.10-A, and §3.04 | Board’s interpretation was reasonable and harmonious with the ordinance | Board did not misinterpret or misapply the zoning ordinance |
| Whether conditional use permits can be used as land disturbance permits | Conditional use serves as land disturbance permit under §3.04 | Different steps; land disturbance permit required later under §6.10-A | The conditional use permit is a preliminary step; later land disturbance permit required; Board’s approach was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagerott v. Morton Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 2010 ND 32 (North Dakota 2010) (standing requires being aggrieved by the decision; odor setback case cited for aggrieved status)
- Nodak Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward Cnty. Farm Bureau, 2004 ND 60, 676 N.W.2d 752 (North Dakota 2004) (three-prong test for associational standing; some members must have standing)
- Peterson, 2011 ND 87, 797 N.W.2d 316 (North Dakota 2011) (associational standing framework; germane to organization’s interests)
- Hagerott v. Morton Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 2010 ND 32, 778 N.W.2d 813 (North Dakota 2010) (deference to reasonable interpretation of ordinance; limited review)
- Washburn Pub. Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Pub. Sch. Educ., 338 N.W.2d 664 (North Dakota 1983) (factually aggrieved concept; injury to individual interest)
- Tibert v. City of Minto, 2006 ND 189, 720 N.W.2d 921 (North Dakota 2006) (limited and deferential standard of review for local decisions)
- Mertz v. City of Elgin, 2011 ND 148, 800 N.W.2d 710 (North Dakota 2011) (interpretation of ordinance; deference to agency’s interpretation)
- Gowan v. Ward Cnty. Comm’n, 2009 ND 72, 764 N.W.2d 425 (North Dakota 2009) (principles of review of local governing decisions)