Matthew v. Smith
707 S.W.2d 411 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To obtain a use variance from a zoning ordinance, an applicant must prove 'unnecessary hardship' by showing with specific, dollars-and-cents evidence that the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in that zone.
Facts:
- Jim and Susan Brandt purchased a tract of land zoned for Single Family Residences.
- At the time of purchase in March 1980, the property already contained two separate houses.
- The two houses on the single lot had been used as separate residences for approximately 30 years.
- The Brandts rented each house to a separate residential family.
- At the suggestion of a city official, the Brandts applied for a variance to legally permit the use of both houses as separate single-family dwellings.
Procedural Posture:
- Jim and Susan Brandt applied to the Board of Zoning Adjustment of Kansas City for a variance.
- The Board of Zoning Adjustment granted the Brandts' application.
- Jon Matthew, a neighboring landowner, filed a petition for certiorari in the circuit court to challenge the Board's decision.
- The circuit court affirmed the Board's order granting the variance.
- Matthew (appellant) appealed the circuit court's judgment to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the circuit court.
- A dissenting judge from the court of appeals certified the case for review to the Supreme Court of Missouri.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a board of zoning adjustment have the authority to grant a use variance when the applicant has not provided sufficient evidentiary proof, such as financial data, to demonstrate that they would suffer an 'unnecessary hardship' without the variance?
Opinions:
Majority - Welliver, J.
No. A zoning board does not have the authority to grant a use variance without sufficient evidence establishing unnecessary hardship. Overruling prior precedent, the court holds that use variances are permissible in Missouri but require a showing of 'unnecessary hardship,' a more rigorous standard than the 'practical difficulties' test for area variances. The court adopts the three-part test from Otto v. Steinhilber, which requires an applicant to prove: (1) the land cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a permitted purpose; (2) the owner's plight is due to unique circumstances; and (3) the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The first prong, reasonable return, cannot be established by mere conclusory statements; it requires 'dollars and cents' proof. In this case, the Brandts only offered their opinion without supporting financial evidence, which was insufficient to meet the unnecessary hardship standard, rendering the Board's grant of the variance unauthorized.
Concurring - Robertson, J.
No. A zoning board's grant of a variance is unlawful when the applicant fails to provide the evidentiary proof required by the governing ordinance. This opinion concurs in the result but disagrees that the requested variance is a 'use' variance, classifying it instead as an 'area' variance related to density and lot size. However, even under the area variance classification, the local North Kansas City ordinance imposes a similar standard, requiring proof that the property 'cannot yield a reasonable return' if used as zoned. Because the Brandts failed to provide the necessary financial proof to meet this standard, the board's decision was unlawful, and the majority's discussion of use variances was unnecessary to resolve the case.
Concurring - Blackmar, J.
No. The board's order granting the variance cannot stand because the hearing was procedurally flawed. This opinion concurs in the judgment of reversal and remand. The fact that two habitable houses pre-existed the zoning ordinance provides a strong basis for a finding of 'unnecessary hardship.' However, the Board committed a critical error by denying the opposing party the right to inquire about the property's initial cost, which is a relevant starting point for determining whether the owner can achieve a reasonable return. This error tainted the fairness of the hearing, and therefore the Board's order must be reversed.
Analysis:
This case is significant for explicitly authorizing use variances in Missouri, overturning a line of cases that had prohibited them. By adopting the stringent, three-part 'unnecessary hardship' test from New York's Otto v. Steinhilber, the court established a high evidentiary bar for applicants, requiring specific financial proof rather than general assertions of hardship. This decision aligns Missouri with the majority of jurisdictions and provides a clear, albeit difficult, pathway for obtaining use variances, reinforcing that they are an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly.
Unlock the full brief for Matthew v. Smith