Court Opinion

ID: 9621622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:01:40.43138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:05.867089
License: Public Domain

HAROLD L. LOWENSTEIN, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion of Judge Ellis. Under the facts here, I believe the county BZA, the local authority operating under county ordinances, had the power to deny a special use permit whether or not the City of Peculiar intended to annex the property. I further believe Cass County could successfully defend the denial of a special use permit, even if the five specific criteria of the ordinance were satisfied by the applicant, because there was sufficient evidence of the more general sixth criterion that the project was not compatible with adjacent properties and with the general safety, health, and comfort of residential homeowners. I believe a local authority with an ordinance such as here, may, with sustainable findings, deny a special use permit on a general criteria of compatibility, even where the applicant appears to meet all the specific criteria.
A special use permit means just that: a special permit that allows a locality to control or limit uses of real estate, which are inherently hazardous to the general public or to nearby landowners, but, which uses may be desirable for many reasons, including economic reasons. State ex rel. Barber & Sons Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Jackson County, 869 S.W.2d 113, 117 (Mo.App. 1993). The use of special permits by governing bodies is afforded with a great deal of latitude and the governing body can best weigh potential benefits against threats to neighbors. Id. Governing bodies may consider zoning and use of the surrounding property. West Lake Quarry v. City of Bridgeton, 761 S.W.2d 749, 751 (Mo.App.1988). In the case at bar, residential use around the existing quarry operations was growing and getting closer to the subject area. As in Barber, the decision for the BZA was between profitability on one side and the effects of a quarry operation on residential owners on the other.
MMM bore the burden of challenging the reasonableness of BZA decisions. Elam v. City of St. Ann, 784 S.W.2d 330, 335 (Mo.App.1990). The evidence here was that even with a promised five to eight year delay in quarry operations on this particular parcel, the effect on present and future homeowners outweighed the remedial actions of the applicant.