Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No. 7 <br />1 Rezone-City denies. landowners' request for a <br />rezone <br />Landowners challenge. the denial as "unreasonable," arguing <br />their private detriment outweighs the public benefit <br />Citation: JGJ Properties, LLC v. City of Ellisville, 2010 WL 623703 <br />(Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2010) <br />MISSOURI (02/23/10)-This case addressed the necessary bur- <br />den (i.e., of a private detriment) that ptoperty owners must meet in <br />order to rebut the presumption that continuation of present zoning <br />is reasonable. <br />The Background/Facts: JGJ Properties, L.L.C. ("JGJ") and Megan' <br />Wolff owned property in the city. JGJ purchased-its property with the <br />intention of relocating its lawn irrigation and installation business <br />("Duncan & Perry") to the property. When JGJ purchased the prop- <br />erry it was aware that it was zoned R-1 residential. Wolff owned the <br />ptoperty adjoining JGJ's property. Wolff's property was also zoned <br />R-1 residential. Duncan & Perry approached Wolff about petitioning <br />the city to rezone both properties as commercial and creating a com- <br />(. ,) tined parking lot for the new businesses.. <br />Both JGJ and Wolff (collectively, the "Landowners") requested <br />that the city rezone their property from R-1 residential to C-1 com- <br />mercial district. <br />The city council ultimately denied the request. <br />The Landowners then filed an action with the circuit court. They <br />asked the court to declare that "the zoning of the properties was un- <br />reasonable and invalid." They also asked the court to order the city <br />to rezone the properties to "a reasonable classification under the City <br />Zoning Ordinance." <br />The' circuit court determined that the city council's actions in re- . <br />fusing to rezone the Landowners' properties "were not unreasonable <br />or arbitrary." <br />The Landowners appealed. <br />The Court's Decision: Judgment of circuit court affirmed. <br />The Missouri Court of Appeals agreed that the city council's de- <br />cision to continue residential zoning for the Landowners' properties <br />"was not arbitrazy and unreasonable." <br />The court explained that, in reviewing zoning decisions, the court: <br />i <br />~ ~ presumes that continuation of the present zoning is reasonable; and <br />applies atwo-part test. Under that two-part test, the court must: <br />First, review "the property owner's evidence to determine whether <br />© 2010 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />51 <br />