Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/1998

Home

Page 8- January 10, 1998 ,Z.B. indispensable party who had to be served. see also: B.. idle Trails Community Club v. City of Bellevue, 742 P.2d 1110 (1986). see also: Griffith v. City of Bellevue, 922 P2d 83 (1996). Waste DisPosal Landowner seeks court order instead of appealing zoning board decision Farmer's Stone Products Co. v. Hoyt, 950 S. W.2d 673 (Missouri) 1997 In 1966, Farmer's Stone Products Co. leased a landfill for nonhazardous waste in Livingston County, Mo. In 1992, the company's owner wanted to sell Farmer's stock and release the landfill. To finalize the proposed sale, the owner 'wanted a ruling from the county commission that the landfill .complied with all county ordinances. In 1992, the commission voted to grandfather the landfill as an industrial use. It decided Farmer's didn't have to apply for a nonconforming use certificate. The stock sale occurred and Farmer's new owners signed a long-term lease, spending money to bring the landfill into compliance with state regulations. In 1993, the county zoning administrator cited Farmer's for operating the landfill, saying it wasn't a legal nonconforming use. Farmer's appealed the violation to the board of zoning adjustment, which upheld the administrator. Farmer's appealed to court. (This lawsuit was not the subject of this appeal.) At the same time, Farmer's and the property owner sued the cOmmission and the administrator, asking the court to declare the landfill a legal nonconforming use. Farmer's argued this action was to review the commission's 1992 action, and not a challenge to the zoning administrator's or board's deci- sion. The court dismissed the case, ruling the issue had to be resolved in the ongoing lawsuit reviewing the board's decision. Under state law, a party could not seek a court order like the one Farmer's sought if the law provided an alternative method of review. Another state law set the procedures for reviewing an administrative officer's decision involving a county zoning ordinance. That law provided that an owner could appeal the decision to the board of zoning adjustment; if still unsatisfied, the owner could appeal a decision of the board or the county commission to the court. Farmer's appealed, claiming no administrative procedure existed to review the commission's action so seeking a court order was proper. The commission argued the denial of the proposed use of the property as a landfill was the same issue as in the other court action, so it had to be resolved there. DECISION: Affirmed. The trial court properly dismissed Farmer's request for a court order. The law provided Farmer's with an adequate method of reviewing the nonconforming use issue in court. Farmer's couldn't file a separate lawsuit addressing the effect of the commission's 1992 action on the administrator's decision; it had to use the statutory administrative review procedures. see also: Carter v. Greene Count); 765 S. W. 2d 665 (1989). see also: Atnerican Hog Co. v. CottIlo, o. f Cli~to~, 495 S. W. 2d 123 (1973).