89.010. Applicability of law — conflict with zoning provisions of another political subdivision, which to prevail. — 1. The provisions of sections 89.010 to 89.140 shall apply to all cities, towns and villages in this state.
2. (1) As used in this subsection, "transect-based zoning" means a zoning classification system that prescriptively arranges uses, elements, and environments according to a geographic cross-section that range across a continuum from rural to urban, with the range of environments providing the basis for organizing the components of the constructed world, including buildings, lots, land use, street, and all other physical elements of the human habitat, with the objective of creating sustainable communities and emphasizing bicycle lanes, street connectivity, and sidewalks, and permitting high-density and mixed use development in urban areas.
(2) In the event that any city, town, or village adopts a zoning or subdivision ordinance based on transect-based zoning, and such transect-based zoning provisions conflict with the zoning provisions adopted by code or ordinance of another political subdivision with jurisdiction in such city, town, or village, the transect-based zoning provisions governing street configuration requirements, including number and locations of parking spaces, street, drive lane, and cul-de-sac lengths and widths, turning radii, and improvements within the right-of-way, shall prevail over any other conflicting or more restrictive zoning provisions adopted by code or ordinance of the other political subdivision.
Notes of Decisions
The Lamar Co., LLC v. City of Columbia, Missouri, 512 S.W.3d 774 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Consistent with this constitutional provision, the General Assembly has delegated the police power to regulate land use to counties, cities and other political subdivisions.”
State Ex Rel. Sims v. Eckhardt, 322 S.W.2d 903 (Mo. 1959).
· cites it 5× “) A proposal to extend the corporate limits of the City and annex approximately 2,500 acres of land, including appellant’s said lot, was to be voted upon December 15, 1955.”
Strandberg v. Kansas City, 415 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. 1967).
· cites it 4× “In the first place, the enabling act is a series of statutes consisting of §§ 89.010 through 89.140. Further, the plaintiffs fail to distinguish from regulations and restrictions within a district and a change or modification of the boundaries of a district.”
State Ex Rel. Croy v. City of Raytown, 289 S.W.2d 153 (Mo. Ct. App. 1956).
· cites it 7× “080 of the act reads in part as follows: “Such local legislative body shall provide for the appointment of a board of adjustment, and in the regulations and restrictions adopted pursuant to the authority of sections 89.010 to 89.140 may provide that the said board of adjustment…”
City of Springfield v. Goff, 918 S.W.2d 786 (Mo. 1996).
· cites it 3× “The statute, a provision of the Missouri Zoning Enabling Act, section 89.010, et seq., RSMo 1994, requires legislative bodies to follow certain procedures for rezoning land in the face of a valid protest petition, i.”
State Ex Rel. Childress v. Anderson, 865 S.W.2d 384 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “In Hickman, the Kirksville City Council argued that zoning enabling statutes in § 89.010 et seq. had preempted zoning measures from the initiative process, citing Donohue in support.”
Moore v. City of Parkville, 156 S.W.3d 384 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Missouri’s Zoning Enabling Act, sections 89.010 through 89.140, is the sole source of power and measure of authority for a city, town, or village in zoning matters.”
Baumer v. City of Jennings, 247 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
“The board of adjustment shall have the following powers: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of sections 89.010 to 89.140 or of any ordinance…”
Dahman v. City of Ballwin, 483 S.W.2d 605 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 2× “It has long rested upon elementary principles that the enabling act (§ 89.010 to § 89.140) requires those using the powers delegated to conform to the terms of the grant.”
State Ex Rel. Chiavola v. Vill. of Oakwood, 886 S.W.2d 74 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “140 RSMo 1986 provides: Previous ordinances to remain in force: Wherever any municipality pursuant to an act of the *79 legislature of this state shall have adopted an ordinance or ordinances for any of the purposes covered by sections 89.010 to 89.140, such ordinance or…”
City of Kansas City v. Tayler, 689 S.W.2d 645 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 3× “130, RSMo 1978 which provides: Wherever the regulations made under authority of sections 89.010 to 89.140 require a greater width or size of yards, courts, or other open spaces, or require a lower height of building or less number of stories, or require a greater percentage of…”
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.