Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 64.870 (2026)

County board of zoning adjustment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

64.870. County board of zoning adjustment — members — organization — appeals to — procedure — powers of board. — 1. Any county commission which appointed a county zoning commission and which has adopted a zoning plan, as provided in sections 64.800 to 64.905, shall appoint a county board of zoning adjustment. The board shall consist of five residents of the county, but not more than two shall be residents of the incorporated area of the county and not more than one may be a member of the county zoning commission. The membership of the first board appointed shall serve respectively: One for one year, one for two years, one for three years, two for four years. Thereafter members shall be appointed for terms of four years each. Members shall be removable for cause by the county commission upon written charges and after public hearings. Vacancies shall be filled by the county commission for the unexpired term of any member whose term becomes vacant. The board of zoning adjustment shall elect its own chairman and shall adopt rules of procedure consistent with the provisions of the zoning regulations and the provisions of sections 64.845 to 64.880. The chairman, or in his absence the acting chairman, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. All meetings of the board of zoning adjustment shall be open to the public, and minutes shall be kept of all proceedings and official actions, which minutes shall be filed in the office of the board and shall be a public record. Appeals to the board of zoning adjustment may be taken by any owner, lessee or tenant of land, or by a public officer, department, board or bureau, affected by any decision of the administrative officer in administering a county zoning ordinance. The appeals shall be taken within a period of not more than three months, and in the manner provided by the rules of the board. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless the officer from whom the appeal is taken shall certify to the board that by reason of facts stated in the certificate a stay would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property. The board of adjustment shall have the following powers and it shall be its duty:

(1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error of law in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of the county zoning regulations;

(2) To hear and decide all matters referred to it or which it is required to determine under the zoning regulations adopted by the county commission as herein provided;

(3) Where, by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape or topography or other extraordinary or exceptional situation or condition of a specific piece of property, the strict application of any regulation adopted under sections 64.845 to 64.880 would result in peculiar and exceptional difficulties to or exceptional and demonstrable undue hardship upon the owner of the property as an unreasonable deprivation of use as distinguished from the mere grant of a privilege, to authorize, upon an appeal relating to the property, a variance from the strict application so as to relieve the demonstrable difficulties or hardships, provided the relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent, purpose, and integrity of the zone plan as embodied in the zoning regulations and map.

2. In exercising the above powers, the board may reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may take such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. Any owners, lessees or tenants of buildings, structures or land jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of adjustment or of the county commission, respectively, under the provisions of sections 64.845 to 64.880, or board, commission or other public official, may present to the circuit court of the county in which the property affected is located, a petition, duly verified, stating that the decision is illegal in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the illegality and asking for relief therefrom. Upon the presentation of the petition the court shall allow a writ of certiorari directed to the board of adjustment or the county commission, respectively, of the action taken and data and records acted upon, and may appoint a referee to take additional evidence in the case. The court may reverse or affirm or may modify the decision brought up for review. After entry of judgment in the circuit court in the action in review, any party to the cause may prosecute an appeal to the appellate court having jurisdiction in the same manner now or hereafter provided by law for appeals from other judgments of the circuit court in civil cases.

--------

(L. 1965 p. 178 § 15, A.L. 1990 H.B. 1070)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Emerald Pointe, LLC v. Taney Cnty. Plan. Comm'n, Defendants-respondents, 578 S.W.3d 390 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Emerald Pointe, LLC v. Taney Cnty. Plan. Comm'n, Defendants-respondents, 578 S.W.3d 390 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 36× “Defendants contended: Here, [Emerald Pointe] failed to file a petition for certiorari, and instead attempted an end run around § 64.870 because it desired relief that was not available under the law.”

Earls v. Majestic Pointe Ltd., 949 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 10× “MPL’s first point relied on claims the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in that Count I for declaratory judgment was an attack on the validity of the 1989 rezoning of MPL’s property after Plaintiffs failed to appeal the rezoning to the Taney County Board of…”

Life Med. Sys., Inc. v. Franklin Cnty. Comm'n, 810 S.W.2d 554 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 10× “Respondents claim we do not have jurisdiction, because petitioners “failed to exhaust all administrative remedies in that they did not comply with Section 64.870, R.S.Mo. (1965) in appealing to the County Board of Zoning Adjustments prior to the filing of the instant case in the…”

Ruth Campbell v. Cnty. Comm'n of Franklin Cnty., & Union Elec. Co., d/b/a Ameren Missouri, 453 S.W.3d 762 (Mo. 2015). · cites it 2× “No provision in section 64.870 alters this procedure. For purposes of this appeal, the motions to dismiss Count I are treated as common-law motions to quash the writ.”

Strozewski v. City of Springfield, 875 S.W.2d 905 (Mo. 1994). · cites it 2× “" As previously stated, RSMo § 64.870 provides an adequate procedure for review.”

375 Slane Chapel Road, LLC v. Stone Cnty., Missouri, 53 F.4th 1122 (8th Cir. 2022). “One hour later, 375 filed a certiorari action in the Circuit Court of Stone County against the Board of Adjustment under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 64.870 , alleging that the Board’s decision was not supported by competent and substantial evidence, and that the Board unlawfully applied…”

State ex rel. Rybolt v. Easley, 600 S.W.2d 601 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “Count I was for a writ of certiorari pursuant to § 64.870, RSMo 1978. 1 Count II was for declaratory judgment and injunction.”

State ex rel. Koewing v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 809 S.W.2d 874 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “1990 and § 64.870 RSMo Cum.Supp.1990 as one. They are identical but may apply to different classes of counties.”

State ex rel. Forget v. Franklin Cnty. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 809 S.W.2d 430 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “RSMo § 64.870 provides more than sufficient process to protect parties aggrieved by zoning commission decisions.”

State Ex Rel. Henze v. Wetzel, 754 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). “These various provisions including § 64.870 — alternative provisions — (relating to noncharter first class counties), second and third class counties and cities often do not specifically refer to the Administrative Procedure Act.”

Rita Aust v. Platte Cnty., Missouri PC Homes, LLC Kelly Jo Yulich Trust Arlene Kagan & Wendy Winer, 477 S.W.3d 738 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “727) because "there are no material differences” between Section 64.870 and Section 64.660. Id.”

Emerald Pointe, LLC v. Taney Cnty., Missouri (W.D. Mo. 2022). · cites it 9× “Plaintiff argues it could not have pursued a claim for damages to the extent the Stop Work Order violated its due process property rights because § 64.870, RSMo, “statutorily limits relief and does not permit legal damages.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 64.870(2) — 1 case

375 Slane Chapel Road, LLC v. Stone Cnty., Missouri (W.D. Mo. 2021).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.