Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/2015

Home

April 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 7 Zoning Bulletin tutes .a legally sufficient hearing for zoning amendments, as required by Missouri statutory law, Mo. Ann. Stat. § 64.875. The Background/Facts: The Franklin County Commission (the "Commission") proposed and adopted zoning amendments allowing Union Electric Company, d/b/a Ameren Missouri ("Ameren") to build a coal -ash landfill adjoining Ameren's Labadie power plant. After the amendments were adopted, several individuals and the Labadie Environ- mental Organization (collectively, "LEO") challenged the legality of the adoption of the zoning amendments. They filed a writ of certiorari in the circuit court of the county challenging the Commission's amendment of the Franklin County Unified Land Use Regulations to permit the construc- tion of coal -ash landfills "contiguous to the boundary of the property upon which a public utility power plant is situated." Among other things, LEO alleged that the Commission's adoption of the amendments was unlawful because the Commission failed to conduct a valid public hearing as required by Missouri Annotated Statutes § 64.875. Section 64.875, in pertinent part provides as follows: "[N]o amend- ments shall be made by the county commission except after recommenda- tion of the county planning commission, or if there be no county planning commission, of the county zoning commission, after hearings thereon by the commission." LEO alleged that (1) that the proposed zoning amendments authorized the presence of coal -ash landfills next to and under common ownership with an existing power plan, without mentioning Ameren by name; (2) Ameren's Labadie plan was the only power plant in Franklin County and Ameren had publicly proposed to build a new coal -ash landfill on their property adjacent to the plant; (3) during hearings on the zoning amend- ments, the Commission announced that the public could not speak regard- ing Ameren's landfill proposal and that the limitation on discussion had a "chilling" effect on discussion at the hearing. The Commission and Ameren asked the court to dismiss the action, arguing that LEO failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The circuit court dismissed the action. LEO appealed. DECISION: Judgment of circuit court reversed, and matter remanded. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the circuit court erred in dismissing LEO 's petition, which had asserted that the Commission failed to conduct a legally sufficient hearing prior to adopting the zoning amendments. In so holding, the court assessed the requirements for a legally suf- ficient hearing and then whether LEO's allegations stated a viable claim that the zoning amendments had been enacted without a legally sufficient hearing. 10 © 2015 Thomson Reuters