Opinion
20240126
12-19-2024
Cass County, North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. KNB Properties LLC and Delta Dawn, LLP, Defendants and Appellants
Daniel L. Gaustad (argued) and Joseph E. Quinn (on brief), Grand Forks, North Dakota, for plaintiff and appellee. Patrick B. Steinhoff (argued), Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Benjamin E. Thomas (appeared), Fargo, North Dakota, for defendants and appellants.
Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Stephanie R. Hayden, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Daniel L. Gaustad (argued) and Joseph E. Quinn (on brief), Grand Forks, North Dakota, for plaintiff and appellee.
Patrick B. Steinhoff (argued), Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Benjamin E. Thomas (appeared), Fargo, North Dakota, for defendants and appellants.
OPINION
Tufte, Justice.
[¶1] KNB Properties LLC and Delta Dawn, LLP, appeal from a judgment and an order denying their motion to alter or amend the judgment. KNB and Delta Dawn argue that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Cass County. We conclude the subdivision ordinance was not violated-and the County's authority was not implicated-until the act of subdivision in 2021 when KNB platted the KNB parcel into two parcels and conveyed one parcel to Delta Dawn by warranty deed. We conclude the district court erred in granting a permanent injunction requiring compliance with the subdivision ordinance before any development, sale, or transfer of the parcel. We reverse the judgment and the order denying KNB and Delta Dawn's motion to alter or amend the judgment and remand with instructions to enter an amended judgment vacating the auditor's lots, restoring the parties to the positions they occupied just prior to the subdivision of the parcel.
I
A
[¶2] KNB owns an unplatted parcel of land in Stanley Township ("KNB parcel"), located within the County. KNB bought the parcel in October 2017. Kevin Biffert controls both KNB and Delta Dawn.
[¶3] In April 2019, KNB entered into a lease agreement with Korber Pharma, Inc., that provided Korber would occupy a commercial building KNB would build on the KNB parcel. KNB hired Olaf Anderson as general contractor and Houston Engineering as a civil engineering consultant for the project. The initial build-out plan consisted of five 15,000 square foot interconnected pods, but KNB modified it to a single 15,000 square foot pod with space for additional pods later. In July 2019, the Township issued KNB a building permit for a 15,000 square foot commercial building with septic system and rural water. Construction finished within five months, and the Township issued a certificate of occupancy in January 2020.
[¶4] Korber occupied the building until January 2023, when it subleased the building to another manufacturer. Biffert testified that Korber left out of fear that the County would shut down Korber's operations because of KNB's conflict with the County.
B
[¶5] The primary issue is whether KNB needed the County's approval under its subdivision ordinance for its development of the KNB parcel and, if so, when. The building and septic system encroach on watercourse setbacks specified in the County's subdivision ordinance. KNB was aware of these watercourse setback provisions but concluded it was not subject to them because only the Township, pursuant to its zoning authority under N.D.C.C. § 58-03-11, has the power to regulate the location of buildings and attendant improvements on unplatted land within the Township. KNB also concluded that its construction on the KNB parcel did not trigger the subdivision ordinance because the construction did not constitute a "subdivision" under the ordinance. The County disagreed with KNB's conclusions and demanded that KNB secure County approval for the project via a subdivision application. KNB's refusal prompted this litigation.
1. Cass County's Subdivision Ordinance
[¶6] The County, "pursuant to the authority granted by the Home Rule Charter of Cass County and Chapter 11-09.1 of the North Dakota Century Code," adopted its Subdivision Ordinance, #2006-1, "[t]o provide for zoning, planning, and subdivision of public or private property within the Cass County limits but outside the zoning authority of any city or organized township." Cass County Subdivision Ordinance, § 101.1; see art. 2(7), Cass County, North Dakota, Home Rule Charter. The subdivision ordinance thus "govern[s] the subdividing of land within the subdivision regulation jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners ....Cass County Subdivision Ordinance § 101.2.
[¶7] Section 102 of the subdivision ordinance defines the County's subdivision jurisdiction relative to a township's zoning authority:
The County regulation of subdivision pursuant to this Ordinance shall in no way affect, limit, or infringe upon the zoning authority of any city or organized township. The standards and requirements contained in this Ordinance shall apply as minimum standards for the regulation of subdivision in those areas within the subdivision regulation jurisdiction of the County Board of Commissioners recognized under the "Planning Function of Cass County," May 3, 1993, which states the County regulates the subdivision of land and the townships currently regulate zoning. However, if a township, in its zoning ordinance, building code, road ordinance, or other ordinance, code, resolution, or regulation, imposes more restrictive standards and requirements than contained herein, such other standards and requirements shall prevail. [ . . . ] All township ordinance requirements should be met or agreed to by the developer to the satisfaction of the township prior to approval of the plan by the Planning Commission. Approval of a plan by the Planning Commission shall not be construed as an indication that the plan complies with the local standard or requirement, only that the plan complies with the standards of this Ordinance and relevant requirements of law.Cass County Subdivision Ordinance § 102.2.
[¶8] At issue here is whether KNB's activities on the KNB parcel constitute a "subdivision" subject to the subdivision ordinance. The subdivision ordinance defines "subdivision" as:
A division of a lot, tract, or parcel of land, creating one or more lots, tracts, or parcels for the purpose, either immediate or future, of sale or of building development and any plat or plan which includes the creation of any part of one or more streets, public easements, or other rights of way, whether public or private, for access to or from any such lot, tract, or parcel and the creation of new or enlarged parks, playgrounds, plazas, or open spaces.
Cass County Subdivision Ordinance § 203.
[¶9] The improvements on the KNB parcel encroach on the watercourse setbacks specified in § 610 of the subdivision ordinance. The southern edge of the KNB parcel abuts the northern side of County Highway 16. The highway separates the parcel from the Wild Rice River, which flows east along Highway 16 on its southern side across from the parcel's southern boundary. The river also runs along the eastern boundary of the parcel. The Wild Rice River is prone to flooding, which erodes the riverbank and impacts the highway. From 2001 to 2002, the highway suffered a slope failure in the area immediately south of the KNB parcel. Throughout the development of the KNB parcel and ensuing litigation, the County expressed its concern about how this development will impact the stability of County Highway 16.
2. KNB's Subdivision Application
[¶10] KNB began construction of the Korber building after receiving its building permit from the Township in July 2019. Although KNB now contends it did not need County approval to construct the building, KNB's engineering consultant, Houston Engineering, initially sought County approval for the project.
[¶11] Between July and December 2019, Houston worked with the County to plat the KNB parcel in compliance with the County subdivision ordinance. In July 2019, Houston submitted to the County a site plan showing the watercourse setbacks specified in the subdivision ordinance. The County responded the next day, expressing concern that the proposed improvements encroached on the watercourse setbacks and recommending that KNB either relocate the improvements or perform a geotechnical study to determine alternative watercourse setbacks. In August 2019, Houston submitted a geotechnical report and revised site plan to the County, proposing new watercourse setbacks. In September and October 2019, Houston submitted to the County several plat maps depicting improvements and proposed modifications to the watercourse setbacks.
[¶12] KNB began construction of the building while Houston worked with the County to plat the KNB parcel under the subdivision ordinance. KNB member Biffert disagreed with Houston's opinion that KNB required County approval for the building, believing that KNB needed only the Township's approval. In November 2019, Houston completed a subdivision application for KNB and sent it to Biffert for his signature. Biffert did not respond to Houston, but three days later, Houston submitted the application to the County. The County responded a week later, informing Houston that the subdivision application was incomplete and providing an itemized list of missing components. In an email to the County in January 2020, Houston stated that KNB already had many of the outstanding items and that he had explained to Biffert that the County had jurisdiction to require KNB to plat the KNB parcel via a subdivision application. KNB never completed the subdivision application.
3. Development Planning and Division of the KNB Parcel
[¶13] Korber moved into the building and began operations in January 2020 after receiving an occupancy permit from the Township. In February 2020, Biffert submitted to the County KNB's proposed build-out plans for the KNB parcel, to be executed over the next ten years, that included subdivision of the KNB parcel into five parcels and numerous improvements.
[¶14] KNB platted the KNB parcel into two auditor's lots: a 12.451-acre parcel to the west and a 32.535-acre parcel to the east. The 12.451-acre parcel remains unimproved; the building and attendant improvements are on the 32.535-acre parcel. On June 23, 2021, KNB recorded the plats of the auditor's lots in the Cass County Recorder's Office. On July 26, 2021, KNB conveyed the 12.451-acre parcel to Delta Dawn by warranty deed.
4. Current Litigation
[¶15] The County filed suit against KNB and Delta Dawn under N.D.C.C. § 1133.2-15, alleging KNB and Delta Dawn had violated the County's subdivision ordinance. The County sought a preliminary injunction enjoining KNB from further development activities on the parcel and prohibiting occupation of the building until KNB complies with the subdivision ordinance. In February 2022, the district court allowed the County to add Delta Dawn as a defendant. In their joint answer to the County's amended complaint, KNB and Delta Dawn denied that they were subject to the subdivision ordinance and filed a counterclaim against the County, alleging selective enforcement of the subdivision ordinance and seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting the County from enforcing the subdivision ordinance against them.
[¶16] In September 2022, the district court denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, finding disputed issues of material fact. In December 2023, the court ruled on the parties' renewed motions for summary judgment, granting the County's motion and denying KNB's and Delta Dawn's motion for partial summary judgment. The court concluded that KNB's construction on the KNB parcel in 2019 was not a "subdivision" governed by the subdivision ordinance. But KNB's creation of two auditor's lots from the KNB parcel and conveyance of the 12.451-acre parcel to Delta Dawn in 2021 was, however, a subdivision governed by the subdivision ordinance and subject to County approval. The judgment granted the County the following injunctive relief until KNB and Delta Dawn come into compliance with the subdivision ordinance:
a. The Defendants are permanently enjoined from creating new lots, parcels, or tracts on or from the KNB Parcel;
b. The Defendants are permanently enjoined from constructing new buildings, structures, driveways, access ways, or other improvements upon the KNB Parcel; and
c. The Defendants are permanently enjoined from the sale or other transfer or any portion of the KNB Parcel.
The court dismissed KNB and Delta Dawn's counterclaim with prejudice.
[¶17] KNB and Delta Dawn moved the district court to alter or amend its judgment, arguing the permanent injunction was overbroad and the proper remedy was to declare void the 12.451-acre auditor's plat and warranty deed filed by KNB in the Cass County Recorder's Office. The district court concluded that KNB's development of the KNB parcel in 2019 was lawful and not subject to the subdivision ordinance; but platting the KNB parcel into two auditor's lots and conveying one lot to Delta Dawn in 2021 triggered the subdivision ordinance. KNB and Delta Dawn argued that the most appropriate remedy was not to require their compliance with the setback requirements of the subdivision ordinance but rather to void the conveyance of the 12.451-acre parcel to Delta Dawn and enjoin future subdivision of the KNB parcel. The court denied the motion to alter or amend, concluding that although improvements to the KNB parcel were lawful and not subject to the subdivision ordinance when made in 2019, KNB's creation of the auditor's lots and conveyance of a lot to Delta Dawn made it subject to the subdivision ordinance and constituted two violations: (1) failure to seek prior County approval for subdivision of KNB parcel; and (2) the existence of nonconforming improvements on the KNB parcel at the time of subdivision.
II
A
[¶18] Our standard for reviewing a grant of summary judgment is well-established:
Summary judgment is a procedural device for the prompt resolution of a controversy on the merits without a trial if there are no genuine issues of material fact or inferences that can reasonably be drawn from undisputed facts, or if the only issues to be resolved are questions of law. A party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining whether summary judgment was appropriately granted, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and that party will be given the benefit of all favorable inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the record. On appeal, this Court decides whether the information available to the district court precluded the existence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitled the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law which we review de novo on the entire record.Berger v. Sellers, 2023 ND 171, ¶ 7, 996 N.W.2d 329 (citation omitted).
[¶19] "Summary judgment generally is an appropriate method for resolving statutory construction issues." Nandan, LLP v. City of Fargo, 2017 ND 72, ¶ 9, 892 N.W.2d 165. We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. In re Estate of Lindberg, 2024 ND 10, ¶ 8, 2 N.W.3d 220. We interpret ordinances under rules of statutory construction. Berger, 2023 ND 171, ¶ 8. As explained in Hagerott v. Morton Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs:
The interpretation of an ordinance, like the interpretation of a statute, is a question of law subject to full review on appeal. In construing an ordinance, we ascertain the enacting body's intent by giving the language its plain, ordinary, and commonly understood
meaning. When the language of an ordinance is free and clear of all ambiguity, the letter of the ordinance cannot be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. We construe ordinances as a whole and harmonize them to give meaning to related provisions. We will ordinarily defer to a reasonable interpretation of a statute by the agency enforcing it, but an interpretation that contradicts clear and unambiguous language is not reasonable.2010 ND 32, ¶ 13, 778 N.W.2d 813 (cleaned up).
B
[¶20] KNB and Delta Dawn argue that the County has no authority to enforce watercourse setbacks within the Township, because watercourse setbacks affect a building's location, which is a zoning matter over which the Township has exclusive jurisdiction. The County rejects this construction, arguing that watercourse setbacks are not a zoning matter but rather a valid exercise of the County's subdivision authority. The County argues that because the subdivision ordinance serves a regulatory purpose distinct from that of the Township's zoning ordinances, the Township's zoning ordinances do not supplant the subdivision ordinance. The County further argues that KNB's compliance with the Township's zoning ordinances and procurement of building and occupancy permits from the Township do not exempt KNB from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance.
[¶21] We first consider whether the County can regulate and enforce watercourse setbacks via its subdivision ordinance when the Township has zoning authority. KNB and Delta argue only the Township has authority to dictate the location of a building. They cite N.D.C.C. § 58-03-11, which provides:
For the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, or the general welfare, or to secure the orderly development of approaches to municipalities, the board of township supervisors may establish one or more zoning districts and within the districts [ . . . ] may regulate and restrict the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, or use of buildings and structures; the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and structures; the percentage of lot that may be occupied; the size of courts, yards, and other open spaces; the density of population; and the location and
use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, or other purposes.N.D.C.C. § 58-03-11.
[¶22] As a home rule county organized under N.D.C.C. ch. 11-09.1, Cass County has its own zoning authority, but that authority is limited by the zoning authority of organized townships within the County. Section 11-09.1-05(10), N.D.C.C., grants home rule counties the authority to "[p]rovide for zoning, planning, and subdivision of public or private property within the county limits but outside the zoning authority of any city or organized township." The County adopted this exact language in both its home rule charter and subdivision ordinance to describe the County's "enumerated home rule powers." Home Rule Charter, Cass County, North Dakota, art. 2(7); Cass County Subdivision Ordinance, § 101.1. Section 11-09.1-04, N.D.C.C., expressly prohibits a home rule county from appropriating or limiting a township's authority in its home rule charter: "The charter may not authorize the enactment of ordinances to diminish the authority of a board of supervisors of a township or to change the structure of township government in any organized civil township, without the consent of the board of supervisors of the township." N.D.C.C. § 11-09.1-04.
[¶23] The Legislature vested counties with subdivision authority. N.D.C.C. § 1133.2-02. The Century Code and the County's subdivision ordinance provide nearly identical definitions of "subdivision":
The definition of "subdivision" under N.D.C.C. § 11-33.2-01 has a few minor differences, which are underlined and bolded:
[T]he division of a lot, tract, or parcel of land, creating one or more lots, tracts, or parcels for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale or of building development, and any plat or plan which includes the creation of any part of one or more streets, public easements, or other rights of way, whether public or private, for access to or from any such lot, tract, or parcel, and the creation of new or enlarged parks, playgrounds, plazas, or open spaces.N.D.C.C. § 11-33.2-01.
A division of a lot, tract, or parcel of land, creating one or more lots, tracts, or parcels for the purpose, either immediate or future, of sale or of building development and any plat or plan which includes the creation of any part of one or more streets, public easements, or other rights of way, whether public or private, for access to or from any such lot, tract, or parcel and the creation of new or enlarged parks, playgrounds, plazas, or open spaces.
Cass County Subdivision Ordinance, § 203. A county is "empowered to regulate and restrict within the county the subdivision of land" "[f]or the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, public convenience, general prosperity, and public welfare." N.D.C.C. § 11-33.2-02.
[¶24] The interaction between township zoning authority and county subdivision authority presents a novel issue. Our determination of whether the Township's zoning authority supplants the County's subdivision authority centers on the following language in N.D.C.C. § 11-09.1-05(10), the County's home rule charter, and the subdivision ordinance: "Provide for zoning, planning, and subdivision of public or private property within the county limits but outside the zoning authority of any city or organized township." N.D.C.C. § 1109.1-05(10); art. 2(7), Cass County, North Dakota, Home Rule Charter; Cass County Subdivision Ordinance, § 101.1.
[¶25] This language is susceptible to multiple rational meanings and is thus ambiguous. Under one reading, a county has authority to provide for zoning, planning, and subdivision only of private property located within county limits but outside the zoning authority of an organized township. Under this interpretation, "within the county limits but outside the zoning authority of any city or organized township" modifies which "private property" is subject to county regulation. This is how KNB and Delta Dawn read the statute.
[¶26] Another interpretation, adopted by the district court, is that "outside the zoning authority of an organized township" does not modify "private property" as a whole, but instead modifies only a county's zoning authority over private property within an organized township. The district court concluded that the subdivision ordinance's "watercourse setbacks serve the distinct purpose of protecting land and structures from damage due to proximity to nearby rivers. This purpose is complementary to zoning. It neither supplants zoning authority nor oversteps as a zoning matter. This interpretation further harmonizes both [the County and Township] ordinances, giving them meaningful effect. Because the watercourse setbacks are not a zoning matter, the County is able to require and regulate them under the Subdivision Ordinance." The court relied on several decisions from other jurisdictions to support this conclusion: Shoptaugh v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of El Paso Cnty., 543 P.2d 524, 527 (Colo. Ct. App. 1975) ("Municipal planning embraces zoning but the converse does not hold true. Planning legislation and zoning, although sometimes deemed a single conception, do not cover identical fields of municipal [endeavor]."); Singer v. Davenport, 264 S.E.2d 637, 640 (W.Va. 1980) ("Subdivision regulations . . . should be distinguished from zoning ordinances. The purpose of zoning is to provide an overall comprehensive plan for land use, while subdivision regulations govern the planning of new streets, standards for plotting new neighborhoods, and the protection of the community from financial loss due to poor development."); and Town of Sun Prairie v. Storms, 327 N.W.2d 642, 646 (Wis. 1983) ("Zoning and planning must be viewed as complementary devices used in community planning.").
[¶27] We agree with the district court's interpretation. "Statutes must be construed as a whole and harmonized to give meaning to related provisions, and are interpreted in context to give meaning and effect to every word, phrase, and sentence....When statutes relate to the same subject matter, this Court makes every effort to harmonize and give meaningful effect to each statute." State v. Johns, 2019 ND 227, ¶ 8, 932 N.W.2d 893.
[¶28] A county's zoning authority and subdivision authority are addressed in separate chapters of the Century Code. N.D.C.C. ch. 11-33 (granting counties zoning authority within their respective boundaries); N.D.C.C. ch. 11-33.2 (empowering counties to regulate the subdivision of land within their respective boundaries). This supports the conclusion that zoning and subdivision ordinances serve distinct but complementary regulatory purposes. The Township enjoys exclusive zoning authority over private property within the Township, and the location of buildings and attendant improvements is a zoning matter. The County's subdivision ordinance watercourse setback provisions "promot[e] health, safety, [ . . . ] public convenience, general prosperity, and public welfare," and the County may, as a valid exercise of its subdivision authority, condition its approval of a subdivision application on compliance with these provisions of the ordinance. N.D.C.C. § 11-33.2-02. By operating as a condition on the County's approval of the act of subdivision, the watercourse setback provisions do not function as a direct zoning regulation in conflict with the Township's exclusive zoning authority. We hold that a county may impose setback requirements as conditions on its exercise of subdivision authority within an organized township.
C
[¶29] A county's subdivision authority is not implicated unless there is an act taken to subdivide land. The County urged the district court to find that KNB was subject to the subdivision ordinance from the beginning of development activities on the KNB parcel in 2018. Although the County conceded that the KNB parcel was a legally contiguous plot of land until 2021 when KNB platted two auditor's lots from the KNB parcel and conveyed the 12.451-acre auditor's lot to Delta Dawn, the County argued that KNB's development activities, when aggregated, constituted a subdivision requiring County approval. KNB and Delta Dawn responded that if, in arguendo, the subdivision ordinance did apply to them, it did so only in 2021 once there was an actual division of land.
[¶30] The district court rejected the County's argument, concluding that the plain language defining "subdivision" in the subdivision ordinance and N.D.C.C. § 11-33.2-01 requires division of one parcel into two or more. The court concluded that "the actions, as a whole, do not create a subdivision; it is the 'division' of the property that is essential for purposes of determining whether a subdivision has been created. This division did not take place until 2021 when KNB split the property into two and conveyed one portion to Delta Dawn." The court concluded that this division of property, coupled with KNB's clear intention to develop the parcel further, made the KNB parcel subject to the subdivision ordinance.
[¶31] We affirm the district court's conclusion that a violation of the subdivision ordinance did not occur-and the County's authority was not implicated-until the point of subdivision in 2021 when KNB conveyed the parcel to Delta Dawn by warranty deed. The district court's interpretation of "subdivision" under N.D.C.C. § 11-33.2-01 and § 203 of the subdivision ordinance is consistent with the plain language of these provisions. Both provisions define "subdivision" as: "division of a lot, tract, or parcel of land, creating one or more lots, tracts, or parcels for the purpose, either immediate or future, of sale or of building development ...." The County's argument that no actual division is required for there to be a subdivision is contrary to the plain language of these provisions.
[¶32] A county's subdivision authority begins when an action is taken to divide a parcel into two or more parts. Here, such a subdivision occurred in 2021 when KNB platted the KNB parcel into two parcels, recorded the plats with the Cass County Recorder's Office, and conveyed one parcel to Delta Dawn. Because platting of auditor's lots is excluded from the scope of the subdivision ordinance by Section 105.2, the act of subdividing here was complete only upon recording of the deed. KNB's failure to obtain County approval for the subdivision of the parcel was a violation of the subdivision ordinance.
[¶33] The County points to Houston's belief that KNB was subject to the subdivision ordinance from 2018 when KNB began its development activities as proof that those development activities were in fact governed by the subdivision ordinance. This argument fails. Even assuming Houston's belief that KNB required County approval for its initial development of the KNB parcel constituted an admission of KNB's agent, that admission could not give the County authority to regulate activities it did not otherwise have. The County did not have authority to regulate the location of buildings on the KNB parcel until its subdivision authority was implicated, which did not occur until 2021 when KNB platted the KNB parcel into two parcels, recorded the plats with the Cass County Recorder's Office, and conveyed one parcel to Delta Dawn.
III
[¶34] We review a district court's decision on a motion to alter or amend a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P.59(j) for an abuse of discretion. Watford City Lodging LLC v. Miskin, 2019 ND 136, ¶ 7, 927 N.W.2d 860. "A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, when it misinterprets or misapplies the law, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination." Id.
[¶35] The district court granted the County's request for a permanent injunction enjoining KNB, until it complies with the subdivision ordinance, from further subdivision, development, or conveyance of any portion of the KNB parcel. KNB and Delta Dawn moved to alter or amend the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P.59(j), arguing that the injunctive relief did not match the violation found and that the proper remedy is to void the conveyance of the 12.451-acre parcel to Delta Dawn, thus restoring the KNB parcel to its original 44.986-acre size. The district court concluded that KNB's development of the KNB parcel in 2019 was lawful and not subject to the subdivision ordinance; only by subdividing the KNB parcel in 2021 did KNB became subject to the subdivision ordinance. KNB and Delta Dawn argued that, as such, the most appropriate remedy is to void the conveyance of the 12.451-acre parcel to Delta Dawn and enjoin future subdivision of the KNB parcel.
[¶36] The district court denied the motion to alter or amend, concluding that- although improvements to the KNB parcel were lawful and not subject to the subdivision ordinance when made in 2019-KNB's creation of the auditor's lot and conveyance of that parcel to Delta Dawn in 2021 was subject to the subdivision ordinance and constituted two separate violations thereof: (1) failure to seek prior County approval for subdivision of the KNB parcel; and (2) the existence of nonconforming improvements on the KNB parcel at the time of subdivision. To remedy these violations, the district court ordered KNB and Delta Dawn to come into compliance with the subdivision ordinance through the variance procedure outlined in § 904 of the subdivision ordinance.
[¶37] The district court offered little explanation as to why it rejected KNB and Delta Dawn's proposed remedy of unwinding the subdivision and conveyance. This remedy is the most consistent with the subdivision ordinance because the subdivision ordinance permits the County to condition a subdivision on compliance with watercourse setbacks; the proper remedy is to void the conveyance that failed to satisfy the county's conditions on such subdivision.
[¶38] We review the district court's decision for an abuse of discretion, to ensure it is "the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination." Watford City Lodging, 2019 ND 136, ¶ 7. The district court's failure to explain why KNB and Delta Dawn's proposal to void the conveyance that triggered applicability of the subdivision ordinance was an abuse of discretion. The County's authority was to approve or reject a proposed subdivision, here conditioned on the watercourse setback provisions. The violation of the subdivision ordinance occurred in 2021 when, without County approval, KNB recorded the plats of the auditor's lots with the Cass County Recorder's Office and conveyed one lot to Delta Dawn. We reverse and remand with instructions to unwind the subdivision by voiding the deed and vacating the auditor's plat.
IV
[¶39] We reverse the judgment and the order denying KNB's and Delta Dawn's motion to alter or amend the judgment and remand with instructions to enter an amended judgment vacating the auditor's plat and deed conveying the property to Delta Dawn.
[¶40] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr.