MO Appeals Courtroom Upholds Denial of Utility to Assemble a Single-Family House Giving Deference to BZA

This submit was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.

On this case Kathleen Vandenboom, as trustee of the Kathleen M. Vandenboom Revocable Perception, appealed a name of the Board of Zoning Adjustment of the Metropolis of Kansas Metropolis (the “BZA”), which denied the Trustee approval to assemble a single-family residence. On enchantment, the Trustee argued the BZA’s alternative was unlawful on account of it relied on a misinterpretation of the related zoning ordinances.

The Trustee first claimed that the BZA erred in deciphering the lot consolidation provision contained partly 88-610-03-C to make use of to Tons 63-65. Notably, the Trustee argued that, on account of Tons 63-65 have been in single possession earlier to January 1, 2011 (the environment friendly date of the lot consolidation provision), the city’s legislative physique did not intend for the supply to make use of to Tons 63-65 . The courtroom docket disagreed, discovering that although the Trustee argued that the lot consolidation provision did not embrace any language expressly indicating it utilized to rather a lot which were already in single possession on its environment friendly date, this argument was Reverse to the plain language of the lot consolidation provision – which utilized when two or further abutting tons, numerous of which can be nonconforming, are in single possession. Accordingly, the BZA did not misinterpret the lot consolidation provision contained partly 88-610-03-C of the Metropolis’s Code.

The Trustee contended that the BZA misinterpreted the exception contained partly 88-820-01-B as not relieving the Trustee of complying with lot width requirements. The courtroom docket found that the textual content material of half 88-820-01-B.1, whereas authorizing a use of land beneath certain circumstances, did not level out that the land upon which that use is made was thought-about a compliant lot (or fairly a bit the least bit), with the intention to take away that house of ​​land from the lot consolidation provision’s prohibition on product sales that diminishes compliance with lot dimension requirements.

Lastly, the Trustee argued that the BZA’s alternative was illegal on account of the BZA did not grant the selection of the Enable Division a presumption of correctness. On the BZA listening to, the file mirrored that Thompson, the appellant sooner than the BZA, supplied fairly a couple of provisions of the Code as shows, made arguments referring to the interpretation of these provisions, and supplied proof and testimony to find out that certain provisions utilized to the tons at factors. Consequently, the BZA found that Thompson carried her burden of persuasion to find out that the preliminary administrative alternative was in error. The courtroom docket subsequently held that the BZA did not erroneously fail to grant the Enable Division’s alternative a presumption of correctness. Equally, with out providing any arguments or pointing to any particulars that counsel that the BZA based its alternative on improper considerations, the Trustee was unable to find out that the BZA erred on this ground.

State of Missouri Ex. Rail. Vandenboom v Board of Zoning Adjustment of the Metropolis of Kansas Metropolis, 2021 WL 4057197 (MO App. 9/7/2021)