South Dakota Supreme Court defers to local interpretation of zoning ordinance

by Eric Christianson

Croell Redi-Mix v. Pennington County Board of Commissioners
(South Dakota Supreme Court, December 13, 2017)

Croell Redi-Mix owns and operates a quarry located in Pennington County, South Dakota. The quarry has been in operation since the 1970s and was acquired by Croell in 2015. Croell intended to expand the operation. After the quarry was opened, but before it was acquired by Croell, Pennington County adopted zoning ordinances. The quarry falls into the “A-1 General Agricultural District” which allows “temporary quarries” ,by right, and mining operations, provided that a construction permit is obtained.

In late 2015, working in consultation with staff from the Pennington County Planning Department, Croell submitted an application for a construction permit to expand its operations. On February 8, 2016 staff issued a recommendation that the permit be granted subject to 11 conditions. The Pennington County Planning Commission reviewed the report and approved the application subject to the recommended conditions that same day.

On February 10, 2016, the Pennington County Board of Commissioners received a letter signed by 37 area residents requesting an appeal of the approval of the permit. The Board of Commissioners held a special meeting on March 2 to consider the appeal. Opponents expressed concerns about the quarry’s expansion including: dust, traffic, availability of groundwater, runoff, and depreciation of property values. At a second hearing the board voted 4-1 to reverse the approval of the permit.

Croell appealed to the circuit court which reversed the Board of Commissioners decision finding:

  1. The residents who sent the letter did not have standing to appeal.
  2. The Commissioners misinterpreted their own ordinance in their decision.
  3. The Commissioners’ decision to deny the permit was arbitrary.

The Board of Commissioners appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court which granted certiorari.

The Supreme Court reconsidered the three findings of the circuit court.

Standing to Sue Pennington County’s Zoning Ordinance states:

“Any action taken by the Planning Director in administering or enforcing Section 507(A) may be reviewed by the Pennington County Board of Commissioners upon the request of any person affected by such action.” [PCZO § 507(A)(7)(f)]

Croell argues, and the circuit court agreed that this right to appeal only extends to considerations of erosion and storm water control. The Supreme Court reads this passage differently, interpreting the word ‘administer,’ ‘affected,’ and ‘any’ above quite broadly:

PCZO § 507(A) is titled “Erosion and Storm Water Control,” the right to appeal under §507(A)(7)(f) extends to anyone “affected” by “any action taken by the Planning Director in administering . . . Section 507(A)[.]” (Emphasis added.) Noticeably absent from §507(A)(7)(f) is any language limiting the right to appeal to matters involving erosion and storm – water control. Thus, §507(A)(7)(f) provides a right to appeal any action taken by the Planning Director under §507(A). In this case, the action challenged is the Director’s issuance of a construction permit — i.e., the Director’s administering of §507(A)(3).

Because the individuals appealing would be affected by the zoning administrators decision, they have standing to appeal.

Statutory Interpretation Croell argues that the use of its property as a quarry is a permitted use in an A-1 General Agricultural district given that the statute permits temporary quarries and requires only a building permit for the “extraction of sand, gravel, or minerals.”

The County claims that Croell would need to obtain a seperate mining permit as required in the plain language of the ordinance which states, “no extraction of any mineral or substance […] shall be conducted without a Mining Permit.” Here the court identifies a question of statutory interpretation and supports the Commissioners’ interpretation. Further the Court cites the US Supreme Court’s opinion from Chevron v. Nat. Res. Def. Council (1984), which established the principle of “Chevron deference.” Chevron established the principle that courts will defer to the interpretation of those administering a statute as long as that interpretation is “based on a permissible construction of the statute.” In this case the South Dakota Supreme Court found that the Pennington Board of Commissioners interpretation was permissible.

Arbitrariness Because the Supreme Court found that the Board of Commissioners was able to consider more than erosion and storm water control in its decision making, the argument for arbitrariness is moot. The Board’s decision was based on evidence in the scope of its review.

The Supreme Court found that the circuit court erred in reversing the Commissioners’ decision.

Appeals Court Rules Osceola Taxpayers Have Standing to Challenge Establishment of TIF District

by Eric Christianson

Brueggeman vs. Osceola
(Iowa Court of Appeals, June 7, 2017)

In the spring of 2015, the City of Harris was ordered by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to update its aging sewer system and lagoon. Harris, population 170, lacked adequate resources for the project, so the city sent a letter to the Osceola County Board of Supervisors, “asking for help with possibly doing a TIF [Tax Increment Financing district] on the windmills for infrastructure within the City.” The county agreed to help establish an urban renewal area including new windmills located in the county and the sewage lagoon in the City of Harris.

In a meeting on October 20, the board of supervisors passed a resolution to establish the urban renewal area and approve the urban renewal plan. At the same meeting, the board also introduced Ordinance No. 47, which was to establish the TIF district, for its first consideration. On October 27, the board of supervisors gave Ordinance No. 47 its second consideration.

On November 3, the plaintiffs in this case, filed a petition for writ of certiorari and declaratory judgment. The plaintiffs, who are resident taxpayers of Osceola County, alleged that the city and county had “adopted a Resolution that created an urban renewal area that includes the City of Harris and wind energy conversion property […] located outside of the City of Harris[… The] resolution is unlawful because it violates Iowa Code Chapter 403 and the Iowa Constitution.”

On November 10, the board of supervisors held the final consideration of Ordinance No. 47 and adopted it. Then on November 30 the board held a special session and entered into a written urban renewal joint agreement with the City of Harris, “confirming prior verbal agreement and understanding.”

In February 2016 the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. They alleged that the county had acted illegally in establishing the urban renewal area before the joint agreement had been signed. Additionally, they alleged that the urban renewal area was not an “area” because the wind energy conversion property is not connected to the sewage project in Harris. They claimed that they had standing to sue because they were harmed as taxpayers in Osceola County.

Osceola County and the City of Harris filed a motion for summary judgment, and the district court granted it, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the resolution and their claims involving the ordinance were untimely. The final passage of the ordinance took place after the plaintiffs filed their petition. The plaintiffs’ petition was dismissed. On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the district court’s ruling and maintain that the merits of their motion for summary judgment should have been granted instead.

On June 7 the Iowa Court of Appeals considered the issues of the timeliness of the petition as well as the standing of the plaintiffs.

The taxpayers argued that each of the considerations of the ordinance was a challengeable action. Here, the Iowa Court of Appeals agreed that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the ordinance was untimely. Iowa case law provides that the challengeable action occurs “when the underlying proceeding becomes final.”

With regards to standing, the Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs that as residents and taxpayers of Osceola county they stood to be harmed citing an earlier case that stated: “by its nature, TIF diverts property tax revenue that would otherwise be available to the regular taxing district.” Further the court of appleals found that although the plantiffs were untimely with their challenge to the passage of the ordinance, the plaintiffs did have standing to challenge the earlier resolution. It is reasonable to assume that the passage of the resolution meant that the ordinance would be passed as well.

The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to district court for further proceedings.

Community group did not have standing to challenge rezoning denial

by Hannah Dankbar and Gary Taylor

Iowa Coalition Against The Shadow (ICATS) and Rockne Cole v City Council of Iowa City
Iowa Court of Appeals, January 27, 2106

Iowa City owned property zoned as “Neighborhood Public Zone” (P-1) that was no longer needed for city purposes.  The City Council requested developers to submit proposals, and accepted a proposal for a twenty-story building that would have both commercial and residential units. The proposed building would require the property to be rezoned as CB-10, which contains no height restrictions.  Cole and others filed an application to rezone the property to “Central Business Support Zone” (CB-5) to prevent a building that height from being constructed (CB-5 allows for mixed-use buildings that are less than 75 feet fall). None of the rezoning applicants owned property neighboring the parcel in question or sought to purchase the property to erect a building to comply with CB-5 zoning.  Their application urged the City Council to “protect our cherished commons, and allow future generations of children to enjoy the bright sunlight at Chauncey Swan Park without a 20 story tower looming over them.

The Planning and Zoning Commission held multiple meetings, and ultimately recommended denial of the rezoning application.  The City Council ultimately denied the request.  this left the property as P-1

Cole and ICATS filed a petition for a writ of certiorari claiming that the denial of the rezoning application was arbitrary and discriminatory because City Council had prejudged the issue and intended to grant CB-10 to accommodate the development. They argued that CB-10 zoning violated the comprehensive plan and Iowa Code section 414.3 (2013) and was illegal spot zoning. The district court determined that Cole and ICATS did not have standing because they did not suffer an injury and did not have a vested interest in the property. Cole and ICATS appealed the decision.

On appeal, Cole argued that because he applied for rezoning he had standing. ICATS claimed that they had standing to assert the rights of its members in challenging the rezoning denial.

To determine whether a person has sufficient interest to challenge a zoning decision Iowa is guided by a decision of the Florida Supreme Court: “(1) proximity of the person’s property to the property to be zoned or rezoned; (2) character of the neighborhood, including existence of common restrictive covenants and set-back requirements; (3) type of change proposed; and (4) whether the person is on entitled to receive notice under the zoning ordinance.” (Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832, 837 (Fla. 1972)).

The court applied those factors to this case and determined that neither Cole nor ICATS had standing. There is nothing in the character of the neighborhood or the proposed zoning change that indicates Cole or ICATS had a particular interest in the change. They were interested in the change primarily so community members could enjoy the sun, but people with only a general interest shared by the public are not permitted to initiate action to promote judicial enforcement or interpretation of zoning regulations.

In addition to affirming that neither Cole nor ICATS had standing, the court also agrees that leaving that property zoned P-1 furthered the interest of ensuring residents can enjoy the sun. The specific injury that was the concern of Cole and ICATS (blocking the sun) did not occur by the denial of the rezoning application. Also, if the rezoning application was approved, there was nothing to prevent the developer from submitting an application to rezone the property to CB-10, so this zoning application did not necessarily prevent the injury Coke and ICATS sought to avoid.

The decision of the district court was upheld.

Idaho Supreme Court finds real, substantial harm may come to neighbor of proposed multi-story apartment complex if development is approved

by Hannah Dankbar and Gary Taylor

Lusk, LCC v City of Boise
Idaho Supreme Court, February 10, 2015

In fall 2011, Royal Boulevard Associates, LP applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to build a 352,000 square foot, five-story, multi-family apartment complex called River Edge Apartments. The site is located near Boise State University and is zoned Residential Office with a Design Review Overlay (R-OD). Multi-family housing is allowed at this site, but Boise City Code requires a CUP to build a building that is more than 35 feet tall in an R-OD zone. River Edge was planned to be between 59 and 63 feet tall. Lusk, LLC owns a building next to the proposed site and was therefore entitled to notice of the application for a CUP.

In spring 2012, the Boise Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission) conducted a hearing and unanimously approved the CUP for River Edge. The Commission provided a written explanation for their decision for the height variance and the CUP. Lusk appealed this decision to City Council claiming that the Commission did not adequately address the criteria for a CUP found in the zoning code. Lusk claimed that the proposed building was incompatible with the buildings in the area and that constructing 622 bedrooms and 280 parking spaces would place an “undue burden on transportation and other public facilities in the vicinity” and “the proposed project will adversely affect other property in the vicinity.” The City Council denied this appeal. The District Court affirmed the City Council’s decision and Lusk appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.

Lusk did not appeal the height variance, just the City Council’s decision affirming the CUP. Lusk argued that because the Commission did not follow the correct procedure for granting the CUP the City Council was wrong to affirm the Commission’s decision.  Lusk argued that the district court erred in affirming the City Council’s decision because: (1) the Commission’s approval did not follow the legal procedure, (2) the decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, and (3) the decision was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.

Boise City Code requires the Commission to consider the criteria set forth in Boise City Code section 11-06-04.13 before approving a height exception.  It states, in part, that the Commission must find that “the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, pathways, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features as are required by this title.” Idaho Code §67-6512(d)(7) provides that “conditions may be attached” to a CUP “requiring more restrictive standards than those generally required in an ordinance.” The Boise City Code also requires that the Commission determine “that the proposed use…will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity.”

Lusk argued that the Boise Code requires the Commission to determine whether planned parking is adequate for the proposed project before granting a conditional use permit.  The question is whether the Commission recognized that it possessed the discretionary authority to impose parking requirements beyond the minimum established by the Parking Chapter of the code. The record unambiguously demonstrated that the Commission failed to perceive that it had discretion to require additional parking as a condition of approval of the CUP. A staff member of Boise City Planning and Development Services said that the issue of parking is not before the Commission, rather the question of variance for a height exception and the Boise River System Permit were the only questions that can be addressed.

The Commission failed to recognize that Idaho statutes and the Boise City Code provided it with discretion to require the project to provide on-site parking beyond the minimum required by the Parking Chapter. As a result of this failure to apply governing legal standards, the Commission refused to consider the adverse effects on property in the vicinity. The Court found that the decision reflected an abuse of discretion.

The Court, deciding that the Commission abused its discretion, then had to consider whether Lusk identified prejudice to their substantial rights.  Under Idaho caselaw, a party opposing a landowner’s request for a development permit has no substantial right in seeing someone else’s application adjudicated correctly. He or she must be in jeopardy of suffering substantial harm if the project goes forward, such as a reduction in the opponent’s land value or interference with his or her use or ownership of the land.  Without even attempting to evaluate the impact of guests who arrive by automobile, if only half of the River Edge tenants have an automobile, there will be significant numbers of residents looking for parking in the vicinity.  The potential devaluation of petitioner’s property, time and expense to police parking on petitioner’s property, and inconvenience to employees and visitors to the property suggest the real potential for substantial harm.  The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence that Lusk is in jeopardy of economic harm from the project to satisfy the requirements set forth in Idaho caselaw.

The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision to affirm the city’s CUP approval.

Non-profit association has standing to challenge major North Dakota coal gasification facility; loses on merits

by Gary Taylor

Dakota Resource Council, et al. v. Stark County Board of County Commissioners
(North Dakota Supreme Court, June 7, 2012)

Great Northern planned to construct and operate a coal gasification facility on 8,100 acres of land in Stark County. Great Northern’s planned complex would include a coal gasification plant, chemical fertilizer plant, electrical power plant, coal mine, solid waste landfill, and facilities for manufacture and storage of hazardous, explosive, and odorous products. Great Northern submitted an application to the Stark County Zoning Commission (Commission) to change the zoning of the land from agricultural to industrial and to allow nine conditional uses of the land, including “[m]ineral and other substance exploration or excavation and mining [in] accordance with provisions of Sec. 6.10” of the Stark County Zoning Ordinance. The Commission scheduled a hearing and sent notice by certified mail to all persons who owned land within 200 feet of the boundaries of the proposed rezoned tract. Following the hearing, the Commission voted to recommend that the County Board of Supervisors (Board) approve the application, conditioned upon Great Northern obtaining all necessary local, state, and federal permits or approvals. The Board subsequently approved the application to rezone the property from agricultural to industrial and approved the requested conditional uses. The Board’s approval was subject to several express conditions, including a requirement that Great Northern “obtain all the necessary local, state and federal approvals, licenses and permits relative to the operation of the coal mine.”

The Dakota Resource Council (Council) is a membership-based non-profit corporation which, among other things, works for preservation of family farms, regulation of coal mining and oil and gas development, protection of ground water and clean air, and sound management of solid and toxic wastes. Neighbors United is an unincorporated association which promotes the protection of farming and ranching. The Council, Neighbors United, and several individuals who owned land near the rezoned tract appealed the Board’s decision to the district court. The district court initially determined that the Council, Neighbors United, and the individual landowners had standing to challenge the Board’s decision, but the district court affirmed on the merits the Board’s decision to rezone the property and allow the conditional uses.

The Council, Neighbors United, and landowners appealed.  The Board and Great Northern cross-appealed, arguing that the Council lacked standing to appeal the Board’s decision to the district court.

Standing.  The North Dakota Supreme Court noted at the outset that “standing is the concept used to determine if a party is sufficiently affected so as to insure that a justiciable controversy is presented to the court.”  A not-for-profit association such as the Council that has not suffered an injury itself must satisfy a three-pronged test to demonstrate standing: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. In addition, a nonprofit membership corporation has standing to seek judicial review on behalf of its members, of governmental or municipal regulations directly affecting such members.  The Board and Great Northern challenged the Council’s standing only on the first prong of the test.  The Court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the Council had standing in this case, at the same time acknowledging that it presented a “close question.” The Stark County Zoning Ordinance requires that, when a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Map affects a property use, all property owners within 200 feet of the affected property must be notified of the hearing by personal service or certified or registered mail. In this case, the record demonstrated that at least two individuals identified as Council members received notice of the scheduled hearing from Stark County by certified mail because they owned property within 200 feet of the proposed rezoned tract.  The Court saw the notice requirement “effectively [as] a legislative determination that landowners within 200 feet of the proposed rezoned property have a significant, protectable interest in the Board’s decision whether to grant an application to rezone the property and permit requested conditional uses.  The notice requirement established that Kenneth Kudrna and Randall Kudrna’s property interests were affected by the Board’s decision in a manner different than that suffered by the public generally, and they were more than just an elector and resident taxpayer affected by the decision….We do not believe it can be seriously argued that an 8,100 acre industrial complex, including a coal gasification plant, chemical fertilizer plant, electrical power plant, coal mine, solid waste landfill, and facilities for manufacture and storage of hazardous, explosive, and odorous products, would not adversely affect the Kudrnas’ use and enjoyment of their respective properties located within 200 feet of the proposed complex.”

Rezoning decision.  The Council contended that the Board failed to correctly interpret and apply the Stark County Zoning Ordinance. The Court began this analysis by noting that although interpretation of an ordinance presents a question of law fully reviewable on appeal, the interpretation of a zoning ordinance by a governmental entity is a quasi-judicial act, and a reviewing court should give deference to the judgment and interpretation of the governing body rather than substitute its judgment for that of the enacting body.  The Council argued that Great Northern was required by the ordinance to submit all application materials necessary to apply for a land disturbance permit.  The Board disagreed.  The Court disagreed, as well.  The Board, construing its Zoning Ordinance in light of the facts presented in this case, concluded that the Zoning Ordinance allowed the Board to issue a conditional use permit for mining operations, subject to the requirement that Great Northern ultimately comply with another section of the ordinance and obtain a land disturbance permit before commencing any exploration, excavation, or mining activities on the property.  The Board viewed the granting of the conditional use permit as merely the first step in a lengthy and complex process, and its approval of the conditional use was contingent upon Great Northern complying with all of the enumerated special conditions imposed upon the conditional use permit.  The Court concluded that “this is a reasonable interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, and we give deference to the Board’s interpretation and will not substitute our judgment for that of the Board.”

The district court decision was affirmed in all respects.

Owner of purchase option has standing to apply for variance in Nebraska

by Gary Taylor

Field Club Home Owners League v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Omaha
(Nebraska Supreme Court, May 11, 2012)

Volunteers of America (VOA) proposed to build an apartment-style building for veterans in Omaha.  To construct the building as planned, VOA applied to the Omaha Zoning Board of Appeals (Board) for variances from area and use restrictions. The appellants, Field Club Home Owners League and Thornburg Place Neighborhood Association (Field Club) opposed the application. The Board granted the variances, concluding that the 1987 Code created an unnecessary hardship because it did not contemplate a project like VOA’s. The district court affirmed the Board’s decision, and Field Club appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Field Club argued that VOA lacked standing to request variances from the Board because VOA had not obtained a certificate of authority pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 21-20,169(1), which provides that “[a] foreign corporation transacting business in this state without a certificate of authority may not maintain a proceeding in any court in this state until it obtains a certificate of authority.”  The Nebraska Supreme Court found the provision inapplicable because, although VOA is a foreign corporation, VOA was not “maintaining” a court proceeding. It was Field Club that petitioned the district court and named VOA as a defendant.

Field Club also contended that because the owner of the property was Kiewit Construction Company, and not VOA, that VOA lacked standing because it had no legally cognizable interest in the property. The Supreme Court noted that the majority of courts that have considered the issue hold that a prospective purchaser under a purchase agreement subject to the grant of a variance or rezoning has standing to seek the change. Similarly, courts have held that the holder of an option to purchase property has standing to apply for a variance when the holder is bound to purchase the property if the variance is obtained or when the property owner anticipated that the option holder would seek the variance to complete the sale.  The Supreme Court agreed with these other jurisdictions, and further noted that the principles hold true in administrative proceedings as well as judicial proceedings.

However, the Supreme Court noted that Field Club did not raise the issue of standing until the case reached the Supreme Court.  Partly as a result of this, the record did not contain evidence addressing VOA’s interest in the property.  Therefore, the Supreme Court remanded the case to district court to receive additional evidence and determine whether VOA had sufficient interest in the property to seek the variances.

Missouri Court of Appeals addresses neighbor’s standing in zoning board litigation

by Gary Taylor

Underwood v. St. Joseph (MO) Board of Zoning Adjustment; Sharon Kennedy (Appellant)
(Missouri Court of Appeals, January 17, 2012)

Underwood submitted construction plans to the city of St. Joseph to obtain a building permit for a detached garage measuring 1,328 square feet. The city approved the plan and issued a building permit. Approximately three months later, however, when the structure was 80% complete, the city received an anonymous complaint about the garage and issued a stop work order because the garage actually measured 1,427 square feet. In fact, the city zoning ordinance limits the size of a detached garage to “an area no greater than 30% of the rear yard area behind the principal structure” which, based on the size of Underwood’s yard, meant that the garage could be no larger than 1,035 square feet. The city advised Underwood to either obtain a demolition permit or seek an area variance from the city board of zoning adjustment (BZA). Underwood chose the variance route.

In response to Underwood’s variance request, the city mailed certified letters to adjacent landowners (including Kennedy) notifying them of the BZA hearing on the variance request. Prior to the hearing the city acknowledged that it erroneously issued the building permit for the 1,328-square-foot design and offered to pay 76% of Underwood’s cost to downsize the garage (the portion of excessive square footage attributable to the city’s error). Also prior to the hearing the BZA received written comments from three adjacent landowners regarding Underwood’s requested variance. One of the comments was from Kennedy, expressing her opposition to the variance based upon her concern that “the garage does not fit the character of the neighborhood due to its size and construction material.” and that it “may adversely affect property values in the neighborhood.” At the BZA hearing, however, no one appeared to testify in opposition to the variance request. Nonetheless, the BZA denied the variance. Underwood filed an appeal of the denial with the circuit court. Underwood was identified as “petitioner,” and the BZA and City were identified as “respondents.” On April 4, 2011, the circuit court entered a judgment reversing the BZA’s denial of the variance and remanding the case with orders that the variance request be granted. At a second BZA hearing held May 3, 2011, the city recommended that the BZA adopt the circuit court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Kennedy appeared at this second hearing and argued against granting the variance request based upon her previously stated reasons. At the second hearing, the BZA adopted the circuit court’s findings and granted the variance. One week later, Kennedy filed a notice of appeal in the Missouri Court of Appeals challenging the circuit court’s judgment.

The Court of Appeals determined that Kennedy lacked standing to bring the appeal before the Court of Appeals because Missouri statute limits the right to appeal to “any party” aggrieved by a decision of a circuit court, and Kennedy was not a party to the proceedings before the circuit court.  Kennedy cited two reasons why the statute should not be followed; first, that the Missouri Administrative Procedures Act allows any person “aggrieved by a decision in a contested case” to appeal and that, as a result, she was not required to be a party to the circuit court litigation.  The court rejected this argument because the zoning enabling statutes contemplate a different process that makes this provision of the Administrative Procedures Act inapplicable. Second, Kennedy argued that when the city chose not to appeal the circuit court’s decision, standing transferred to those for whom the city was acting in a representative capacity; i.e., those like Kennedy who would be aggrieved by the decision. The court rejected this argument as well, stating that state law allows aggrieved persons to formally intervene in litigation when their interests are at stake.   Kennedy countered by pointing to Missouri caselaw that suggests that neighboring landowners do not have a right to intervene in circuit court proceedings stemming from BZA matters (because, in her interpretation, the BZA is adequately representing the interests of the neighbors).  The court rejected her interpretation of those cases, and pointed to other Missouri cases, including the dissent of a case where intervention was denied, that imply that a landowner may indeed be able to intervene in a BZA case at the circuit court level if the motion to intervene is timely.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Kennedy’s appeal for lack of standing.

Archives

Categories