Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/2010

Home

April 10, 2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No. 7 Zoning Bulletin the owner has rebutted the presumption that continuation of the present zoning was reasonable"; and then, review "the government's evidence to determine whether such evidence makes the continuation of the present zoning fairly debatable." As to the fast part of the "test," in order to rebut the presumption of validity in the city council's decision not to rezone the Landown- ers' properties, the Landowners had to demonstrate that "the private detriment outweighs the public benefit." Here, the court found that the Landownets had failed to pres- ent evidence of factors that show private detriment, such as: adapt- ability of the subject property to its zoned use; and the effect of the zoning on property value. Evidence showed that the parcels of land at issue were adaptable to a residential use. In fact, both parcels had residences that were being or had been rented. Likewise, although the Landowners alleged that the evidence indicated their properties were worth considerably less under the current residential zoning classifica- tionthan if they were rezoned as commercial, the Landowners failed to present any substantive evidence to support that conclusion. More- over, the Landowners had purchased their respective properties know- ing that the parcels were zoned residential. Their purchase prices were based upon a residential zoning classification. Also, they used their properties as residential properties. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Landowners did not suffer "any private detriment from the [c]ity [coouncil's denial of their petition to change the zoning on their properties from residential to commercial." Because the Landowners "failed to prove .any private detriment whatsoever," the court said it "need not balance the private detri- ment against the public interest." Nor did the court need to address the "second hurdle in examining whether the [c]ity's continuation of the present zoning is `fairly debatable.' See also: Elam v. City of St. Ann, 784 S.W.2d 330 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1990). See also: Lenette Realty ~ Inv. Co. v. City of Chesterfield, 35 S.W3d 399 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2000). ''~ ~~ Case-Note: The court also rejected the Landowners' claim that the city was "equitably estopped" from denying the requested- rezone on the basis that a city planner issued permits to enable the Landowners'to make improvements that would comply with the commercial code. There was no misconduct on the part of the city, and the Landowners knew that the city council approval j ` J was a prerequisite to rezoning. 10 ~ ©2010 Thomson Reuters 52