Opinion ID: 6108256
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: An appellate court reviews the findings and conclusions of the BZA and not the judgment of the trial court. State ex rel. Teefey v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment of Kansas City, 24 S.W.3d 681 , 684 (Mo. banc 2000) . The scope of this Court's review is governed by article V, section 18 of the Missouri Constitution, which provides judicial review of an agency decision shall include the determination whether the [decision is] authorized by law, and in cases in which a hearing is required by law, whether  the [decision is] supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record. This means the scope of judicial review of the decisions of the board of adjustment in a zoning proceedings is limited to a determination of whether the ruling is authorized by law and is supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record. Rosedale-Skinker Improvement Ass'n v. Bd. of Adjustment of City of St. Louis, 425 S.W.2d 929 , 936 (Mo. banc 1968) ; see also Matthew v. Smith, 707 S.W.2d 411 , 418 (Mo. banc 1986). The question whether the decision is authorized by law is a legal question this Court determines de novo. Teefey, 24 S.W.3d at 684 . Determining whether the decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence does not mean that the reviewing court may substitute its own judgment on the evidence for that of the administrative tribunal. Mann v. Mann, 239 S.W.2d 543 , 544 (Mo. App. 1951) . Rather, an appellate court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the decision. Teefey, 24 S.W.3d at 684 . The burden is on the party seeking the variance to demonstrate it should be granted. Baumer v. City of Jennings, 247 S.W.3d 105 , 113-14 (Mo. App. 2008) ; USCOC of Greater Mo. v. City of Ferguson, Mo., 583 F.3d 1035 , 1043 (8th Cir. 2009) (Missouri places the burden of demonstrating a practical difficulty on the party requesting the variance). To the extent Highlands Homes Association v. Board of Adjustment, 306 S.W.3d 561 , 565 (Mo. App. 2009), State ex rel. Branum v. Board of Zoning Adjustment of City of Kansas City, Mo., 85 S.W.3d 35 , 39 n.1 (Mo. App. 2002), Hutchens v. St. Louis County, 848 S.W.2d 616 , 617 (Mo. App. 1993), and similar cases suggest the competent and substantial evidence standard is used only when reviewing use variances, and an abuse of discretion standard is used when reviewing nonuse variances, they are incorrect and should no longer be followed. 4 Missouri's constitution specifically mandates the standard of review for variances is whether the decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence. It does not distinguish between types of variances, and this Court has no authority to depart from that standard. Mo. Const. art. V, § 18 ; Matthew, 707 S.W.2d at 418 n.8.