Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2018

Home

May 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 10 Zoning Bulletin the Church "adequately established the existence of `practical difficul- ties' so the denial of the variance was not supported by competent and substantial evidence." The City appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Circuit Court affirmed in part and re- versed in part. The Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc, first agreed with the Church and the circuit court that the addition of digital lettering was not a change in sign type such that the BZA did have the authority to grant the variance. In so holding, the court looked at the City zoning code's definition of "monument sign." The code defined a "monument sign" as a "sign placed upon a base that rests upon the ground where the width of the base of the sign is a minimum of 75 percent of the width of the longest part of the sign." The court found that the "Church's sign fit within this definition of `monument sign' both before and after the change in the lettering from manual to digital," since the definition did not include any language about what kind of lettering was required on a monument sign. Moreover, the court found that a different section of the City zoning code acknowledged the existence. of "digital monument signs," permitting them in non-residential zoning districts. Since the sign "type" remained the same despite the change in lettering display, the court concluded that the BZA did have authority to grant the variance to the Church. However, the court also concluded that the BZA properly denied the Church's requested variance because the Church failed to show "practi- cal difficulties" in carrying out the C Church's use of the property as a church without the nonuse variance for the digital lettering. Again, since the City zoning code (section 88-445-06-A-4(a)) prohibited "any form of digital or electronic display" on monument signs in residential areas, the Church needed a variance to maintain its sign. Missouri statutory law (RSMo § 89.090.1(3)), noted the court, provides that boards of adjustment can grant variances when: "there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of such ordinance." Citing prior case law, the court noted that for "nonuse" variances, such as that sought by the Church here, the applicant must show that there are "practical difficulties" in carrying out the permitted use of the property because of conflicts with the zoning requirement, thus necessitating the nonuse variance. In other words, here, the Church had to show that it had "practical difficulties". in using its property as a church without a variance allowing it to have digital lettering on its monument sign. The Church attempted to make such a showing. It argued that: (1) the lack of a digital sign impaired the Church's ability to "meaningfully convey its non-commercial religious message" because the Church's 4 © 2018 Thomson Reuters