Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/1997

Home

Z.B. March 10, 1997 Page 5 Nonconfotming Use -- Can structure formerly used as repair shop be convertedYto Storage facility? Law v. City of Maryville, 933 S. W. 2d 873 (Missouri) 1996 The NeWberrys owned a house and operated an auto repair shop on property in Maryville, Mo. Besides living in the house, they had a business phone line there, received the repair shop's mail and stored business records in the house. In 1991 the city passed a zoning code that designated the Newberrys' property single-family residential. The auto repair shop, a commercial use, could continue as a grandfathered nonconforming use. However, if it stopped being used 'Commercially for more than 110 days, any new use had to conform with the new code. Further, if the nonconforming use changed (within the 110 days), it could not be more nonconforming than the old. In 19931 the Newberrys sold their property to the Laws, who began using the repair-shop structure as a storage facility for their electrical business. The Laws rented the house to tenants and tried to sell the property without success. They said ~rhe city was scaring away prospective buyers by telling them the house could be used as only a residence, and the shop structure could be used as only an auto repair garage. The Laws asked a court to determine the property's allowable uses. The court found ihat before 1991 the house was used only as a single-family residence (which was allowed), so it wasn't entitled to any nonconforming-use protection. Also, it said the structure could still be used commercially for storage. The court ordered the city to pay about half of the Laws' attorney's fees, or $1,000. The LaWs and the city appealed. According the Laws, the court erred when it denied the house any nonconforming-use protection. They said since the Newberrys used it fo;, business purposes, it should be allowed to continue as a commercial use. The Laws also appealed the court's decision as to the structure, saying the decision was ambiguous. The Laws argued the structure could be used for a~*)! commercial use- not just a storage facility. Finally, they claimed the court erred in allowing on one lot two different uses -- residential and commercial:- .. in violation of the code. The city argued the structure should get no nonconforming-use protection, since for more than 110 days it had been a storage facility, not a repair shop. It also appealed the attorney's fees award, saying it wasn't justified by unusual circumstances. DECISION;! Affirmed in part. The court affirmed that the house could be used as only a residence, and that the Laws were entitled to attorney's fees. The structure could be used in a~), commercial capacity that didn't exceed the nonconformity of the repair shop. The trial court either discredited the testimony showing the Newberrys used the house fo[ business, or it decided those uses were too minimal to make the house a nonConforming use. Either way, the appeals court couldn't overturn the finding unless it found the lower court abused its discretion, which it didn't.