*1 speeding viola- to be assessed for points Mary Kay Hirsch, and Darvin HIRSCH indicates FEE”

tions. The notation “STAT. Appellants, Plaintiffs it was Whether was paid. that this amount procedures of Section paid pursuant v. is irrele- 39-06.1-08 39-06.1-02 or Section SCHERR, Wendelin Defendant purposes of this determination. vant for Appellee. indicates stamped on the citation The date Civ. 9758. No. day paid the fee was the citation Supreme Court of North Dakota. EWING,” The name “THOMAS processed. known is the name of the July 1980. court judge County be the Stark jurisdiction, and which is also increased notation, indicates stamped County in the Stark

disposition occurred jurisdiction. increased

court of of violation is so record

While like, we

precise complete as we would purpose adequate it is for its intended

hold informing Department of the admis- adjudication a traffic violation.

sion or in as-

If error had been made any clerical record, driving

sessing points to Andre’s at the adminis-

this could have been raised hearing pursuant held to Section

trative

39-06.1-10, allegations No such N.D.C.C. admin- were made Andre at the error hearing.

istrative adequate in this instance is

The record Department to confirm that Andre’s point

driving accumulated authorize of twelve or more and to

total required license as

suspension of his driver’s 39-06.1-10, subsection district court af-

firmed. PEDERSON,

ERICKSTAD, J.,C. JJ., SAND, concur.

PAULSON and Durick,

Pearce, Anderson & student, plain- Pomeroy, law Glenn argued Pátrick W. appellants; tiffs and Durick, Bismarck. *2 Rausch, Bismarck, adjacent of part for defend- combination of an lot

Rausch & zoning regu- P. appellee; argued by Richard not be in and would violation ant Rausch, Bismarck. respective for lot dis- lations size in its trict. PEDERSON, Justice. wrong every time lot “If and Mary brought an 'Kay and Hirsch Darvin adjacent with down used is broken to be against Scherr injunction action Wendelin lots, nothing problems I can see but the City the alleging that Scherr had violated It would all of these would future. mean re-subdividing a by Ordinances Subdivision go City Planning through have to the Summary adjacent theirs. lot situated to permit could is- Commission before a granted was of Scherr. judgment in favor delay upof to 180 sued. This would be a affirm. We increase the days and a tremendous home in Bismarck The Hirschs’ is located upon burden Hills Addition on Lot 24. in North Third this I don’t believe Commission. hold to all of this lot. They do not title you regulations, but would intent of the strip a small on the west side owns Scherr give your me on the mat- please opinion 24, and all Lot 25 next door. of Lot ter.” building applied for and received Scherr letter attorney by dated responded Building Inspector, permits City 19, 1974, not a re-subdi- June that this was duplexes, to two Hegedus, Jack construct vision: other the west side Lot 25 and the one on a lot purchase “The which remaining part 25 and the of Lot already been and recorded is platted has by of Lot It is conceded portion west subdividing not a re-subdivision or a does parties that the construction property. area, any as violate ordinance short, change in “In there is width, separation side length, setback or ap- recorded subdivision as duplexes requirements as between question involves proved, simply your but or the home. themselves Hirschs’ platted of lots have been the use point during the construction At stated, long recorded so as and as duplexes, Hirschs made of the process zoning require- comply with the they objection to the an setbacks, etc., size, area, there ments permit of the regarding issuance no violation.” Hegedus Mr. affirmed that Scherr. 9, 1979, the Hirschs had a October On was undertaken Scherr served complaint summons regulations with the accordance Scherr, alleging that violated Scherr of Bismarck. re-sub- Subdivision Ordinances ques- Apparently this same strip of Lot he dividing Lot and the years tion had been raised some before. which, they separate into owns us a letter writ- The record before contains contend, requires prior approval 18, 1974, Hegedus, June Mr. ten on Hirschs assert- Planning Commission. The attorney opinion questing damaged in they had that ed that been matter, stating part: in relevant diminished as property value had been their depart- of this “It has been right quiet enjoyment their well as plus years for the 15 ment $10,000 asked for property. They their it, if a associated with injunctive damages, for relief compensatory bought approved a lot in an buildings ordering the removal of one home, he large enough wasn’t for his completed), (which point at this was 70% of foot- amount could whatever lot. for restoration of the give the next him what he age on lot to motions for summa- parties brought Both requirements would need meet his that, law, under the judgment alleging long ry left of the as what would be against No they were such statute ordinance entitled other, dispute as being no real exists. there ap- reviewed the The district court

facts. Ordinances, Zoning The Bismarck City city zoning ordinances reached plicable A, Appendix into is broken down four arti- conclusions: following *3 Commission'; cles: 1. 2. restricting no 1. There is ordinance Plan; Zoning; 3. Master 4. Regulations lot; or record building per platted one of These Governing the Subdivision Land. must be as a articles interrelate and read prohibition a 2. such a Without whole. as he wishes on a may many build as houses land, zoning providing of lot re- piece provides Section 15.0401 Article with; complied quirements are Planning Commission authorized disapprove creation, approve to or review Subdividing means the on subdivision of land. 15.0404 defines piece of paper, separately of a identifiable land, in this subdivision as follows: had not occurred case. which lot, tract parcel “The division of a or awarded in fa- Summary judgment was into imme- purpose, lots for whether Scherr, appealed the Hirschs vor of which future, building sale or of diate or this to court. development, . . . ‘Subdivision’ in- we note that preliminary a matter As one cludes the resubdivision of or more 2, 15.0230(4), City Zoning Article § . .” lots in a subdivision . . pro- Ordinances “A “Lot” is defined in same section as this an injunction appro- action is vides subdivision, other portion parcel of a or proceeding in a case such priate method of as a for transfer of land intended unit as this: development.” This is not ownership or “(4) any building In or case Remedies. given only definition of the word “lot” constructed, erected, structure 2 of in the ordinances. Article structure, maintained, any building, or or specific two Zoning Regulations defines article, of this or land is used in violation types “lots”: any ... or designated as a “Lot —Record: Land adjacent, nearby neighboring property or separate legally on parcel and distinct a would such owner who be affected remedies, legally violation, recorded subdivision or a in addition to other mandamus, of Bur- may injunction, recorded deed filed in the records institute proceeding leigh County, Dakota. appropriate other action North building, of such prevent occupancy Zoning: occupied A tract of land “Lot — structure, [Emphasis or land.” added.] occupied principal building or to be a together with accessory buildings, and its merits, agree As we with the to the open spaces yards such as are pur action in district court that Scherr’s article, quired provisions of this under chasing 25, strip a of a lot plus Lot ‘zoning . A lot’ need neces- not recorded, platted and already lot’ here- a ‘record as area, sarily coincide with erecting buildings this was not on in defined.” a re-subdivision ’ by the in- complaint prefaced is that These definitions are The crux of the Hirschs' 2, context Article they their lot and saw that struction that purchased when door, lot, indi- zoning clearly unless empty they next “lot” means there was one lot this mean that be built on it. cated otherwise. We take expected only one house to relief, may appli- lot” be the definition of “record For this be a valid cause for there zoning regula- cable to other articles must be some statute or ordinance that tions, “Regulations as 4 on building per be one such Article provides there can Land,” as building Governing on lot the Subdivision lot and that two houses platting with the specifically deals (cid:127)automatically constitutes a subdvision of article 15.0206(2) Thus, Although provides Article recording of a of land. piece § princi- in the ambiguity with an there shall be more than one are confronted no lot, it is whether as unclear there is building zoning ordinances on one pal the restrictions in the ordinances anywhere restriction such exclusively, or both apply to “record lots” Thus, lot. building per to one as gen- more zoning under the record and restriction, there is no reason without such 15.0404. of “lot” in § eral definition not build more than why a landowner could lot, provided the building one on his record v. North Church In Grace Lutheran area, setback, requirements Bureau, 294 Employment Security Dakota size, etc., complied with. long- (N.D.1980), we stated N.W.2d intent must legislative rule that established Therefore, giving weight fact language of the sought first practical *4 However, statute’s lan where a statute. the officers by Bismarck ordinances case, instant ambiguous, as in the guage charged with them has applying Apple aids. may be had to extrinsic resort allow landowners to additional Tp. City 271 N.W.2d Creek v. of approv- neighboring without footage of Here, (N.D.1978). the extrinsic 583 Commission, and in al of the by the letters aids we were were the by the reached our re- view of conclusions city building inspector city attorney and the applicable ordinances discussed view purchas of practice which indicate that this above, the we affirm the decision of district adjoining lot in ing footage additional of in granting summary favor court particular one’s in a fashion order to use of Scherr. is' not considered a re-subdivision that change there is no in the subdivision SAND, JJ., concur. VANDE WALLE and approved. The construction recorded and the placed these officials have on ordi Justice, ERICKSTAD, dissenting. Chief is that means the cre nances ation, paper, separately reasoning of identifiable respectfully a dissent approved This majority opin- record lot. has been conclusion in the stated many years. for ion. practical have held construc- We 4 of the Bis- 15.0401 of Article Section a statute administer- agency tion of the the City City Ordinances authorizes marck Clapp ing weight, it is entitled some v. review and Planning ap- Commission to (N.D.1976); 236 County, Cass N.W.2d 850 disapprove of land prove or the subdivision weight to give and that this court will the jurisdiction. its 15.0404 of within Section

long-continued, practical as follows: Article defines “subdivision” charged by the officers statutes lot, parcel of or “The division a tract of duty of them. Horst v. applying with purpose, land into lots whether for (N.D.1974). Guy, 219 N.W.2d 153 Addition- future, or of sale or of build- immediate 1-02-39, NDCC, if ally, provides that a § ing development, . . . ‘Subdivi- ambiguous may the court con- statute one of sion’ includes the resubdivision matters, sider, among other the administra- made and more lots in a subdivision tive construction of the statute. prior to the date these corded or after Applying the of subdivision fol- definition regulations adopted.” are facts, lowed regulations of Article fur- The subdivision nothing we conclude that has done Scherr as, portion of a ther define a “lot” “A platted cause the or record lot he subdivision, land intended parcel or other know, be As far as we owns to subdivided. ownership or for as a unit transfer sell one or the attempted has Scherr development.” other, speculate as to the need not clearly discloses A review rights permitted if Hirschs’ Scherr were constructing two du- that. that Scherr’s action of do opinion complies of Lot that if a lot with all of the the west side one on plexes, remaining part of Lot 25 other on violation zoning requirements, relevant 24, west of Lot constitutes regulations occurred. the subdivision of land as defined officials record discloses City con- After 15.0404 Ordinances. in order apparently position taken “lot” and “subdi- sidering the definitions of to minimize the administrative burden 4, Article as set forth in district vision” might Planning placed upon City opinion memorandum court stated its ap- required if to review Commission that, blush, position “At first all prove disapprove “subdivisions” appears valid.” plaintiffs [the Hirsch’s] neighboring purchased land when lots are However, the went on to con- court then whatever adjoining landowners for of the word sider several other definitions purpose. compliance While with the subdi- 2 of the “lot” as found in Article may impose vision an adminis- regulations Ordinances, and, thereafter, concluded that Planning Com- trative burden on creation, means the the subdivisión a lot mission, is an reason that alone insufficient separately piece of a identifiable paper, over totally by city taken officials ignores position land. This determination definition of subdivision as contained regulations past decades. If the pertinent regulations unworkable, rather regulations, land in the govern the subdivision of referred to being ignored, than should be *5 Bismarck. appropriate Commission for Although disregard pertinent considerable attention has been To amendment. to the distinction between the two regulations and continue types of defined Article specific “lots” present complicate will serve to policy Ordinances, e., i. lots confu- and result continued situation lots, insignificant is zoning distinction majority litigation. sion and What importance present and of diminutive encourage self-help opinion herein does governs specifically action. Article with administrative compliance rather than and not the subject of in Bismarck designed keep neigh- processes which are of lands. 15.0202 is by preventing persons good neighbors bors 2, and section Article it states definition parte arbitrary ex taking precipitous from “[fjor purposes of this at the outset rea- these action with indifference. For words certain and terms article [Article 2] sons, majori- respectfully dissent from as follows:” used herein defined [Em- the district ty opinion which affirmed The definitions “record phasis added.] summary granting court’s order “zoning as contained Article lot” and lot” in favor of Scherr. 2, therefore, application have no regulation governs the subdivi- Any sion of land. reliance those PAULSON, J., concurs. confusing misplaced. definitions policy It indeed has been the allow city

of Bismarck officials prior ap-

“subdivision” land without City Planning Commission. A

proval of the attorney

letter from at- reveals concluded,

torney expressing the without therefor, addi-

reasons footage neighboring land-

tional

owners, already where said lots recorded, is not a subdivision of

platted, and was of the apparently He