Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/1997

Home

Page 8 - July 10, 1997 Z.B. . special-use permit; instead, the court said a four-month statute of limitations applied, the period within which Chernick had filed. It found the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The town and town board appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. While a board had the latitude to consider public-welfare issues, it still had to base its decision on solid evidence - not on the general concerns and perceptions of community members. Chernick produced three expert witnesses; the town and its residents offered their opinions, unsubstantiated by data or solid evidence. Offering only speculation, the plan's opponents could not effectively challenge Chernick's expert witnesses. Appeal - Board says company's roadside advertisement violates newly adopted sign policy Gannett Outdoor Company of Kansas City v. Board of Zoning Adjustment of Jackson County, 943 S. ~2d 359 (Missouri) 1997 For more than 20 years, Gannett Outdoor Company of Kansas City owned an outdoor advertising sign on the side of a highway in Jackson County, Mo. In 1991, Gannett got a special-use permit to keep the sign at its location. The next year, the county's Board of Adjustment adopted a policy to standard- ize the board's process for considering sign applications. In particular, the policy dictated size and location requirements. In 1994, Gannett sought to have its special-use permit renewed. At a public hearing, a county commission recommended against approval, finding that Gannett's sign was too large, was several hundred feet too close to residential property, and violated the minimum setback requirements. At a board of zoning adjustment hearing, the board considered Gannett's application. Gannett presented testimony and evidence, and no one testified in opposition. Neither the policy nor the applicable ordinances were admitted as evidence. The board rejected Gannett's application, finding the sign did not conform to the policy. Like the commission, the board cited the sign's size, proximity to residential property, and insufficient setbacks as reasons for refusing to renew the permit. Gannett appealed to a court, which affirmed the board's decision. The court found that substantial evidence supported the board's decision and that the board had the right to adopt the sign-application policies. Gannett appealed, and the board asked for the case to be dismissed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the board. The case couldn't be dismissed, and it couldn't be reviewed. Because the relevant ordinances weren't included in the record, the validity of the board's actions couldn't be determined. Therefore, the case had to be returned to the board for further proceedings. 100