Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 10 MISSOURI (04103/18)—This case addressed the issues of whether, with regard to a church's request for a nonuse zoning variance for a digital display on a monument sign in front of the church building: (a) the presence of digital lettering on the monument sign changed the sign type from monument to digital such that the city's board of zoning adjustment lacked authority under the zoning code to grant the church's request for a nonuse variance; and (b) the church showed "practical difficulties" in carrying out the church's use of the property without a nonuse variance for digital lettering on its sign. The Background/Facts: Antioch Community Church (the "Church") was located in a residential zone in the City of Kansas City (the "City"). For more than 60 years, the Church had a "monument" type sign with a manual message display with individual removable hanging letters. In 2010, at a cost of $11,426, the Church upgraded its monument sign to include a digital display. The Church sought neither a permit nor a variance from the City prior to its 2010 installation of the digital lettering on its monument sign. Approximately one year after the Church added the digital display to the monument sign, the City issued a citation to the Church. The City maintained that the Church's digital lettering was violating the City zoning code —specifically Section 88-445-06-A-4(a), which prohibited "any form of digital or electronic display" on monument signs in resi- dential areas. The Church appealed the citation to the City's Board of Zoning Adjustment ("BZA"). However, before the appeal could be heard, the Church filed an application with the BZA for a variance "to allow [a] digital display on [the] existing monument sign." The BZA rejected the Church's request for a variance because it determined the addition of a digital display on the monument sign changed the "type" of sign from a monument sign to a digital sign. Section 88-445-12 of the City zoning code provided that the BZA could "grant variances to the requirements for signs, except as to type and number." The BZA further provided that even if the addition of the digital display did not change the sign "type," it denied the variance because the Church "failed to establish [the] undue hardship or practi- cal difficulty" necessary for granting a variance. Once the variance request was denied, the BZA ruled on the Church's appeal of its zoning violation citation, finding against the Church. The Church then filed an action with the circuit court, challenging both the BZA's denial of the variance request and the BZA's decision on the appeal of the citation. The circuit court ruled in the Church's favor. The court found: (1) that the addition of digital lettering was not a change in sign type and therefore the BZA did have the authority to grant the variance; and (2) © 2018 Thomson Reuters 3