Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 89
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 89.060 (2026)

Change in regulations, restrictions and boundaries

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  89.060.  Change in regulations, restrictions and boundaries — procedure. — Such regulations, restrictions, and boundaries may from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed, modified or repealed.  In case, however, of a protest against such change duly signed and acknowledged by the owners of thirty percent or more, either of the areas of the land (exclusive of streets and alleys) included in such proposed change or within an area determined by lines drawn parallel to and one hundred and eighty-five feet distant from the boundaries of the district proposed to be changed, such amendment shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of two-thirds of all the members of the legislative body of such municipality.  The provisions of section 89.050 relative to public hearing and official notice shall apply equally to all changes or amendments.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 7416, A.L. 1988 H.B. 923)

Prior revision: 1929 § 7263

(1960) Where only one of the owners of property held by the entireties signed the petition for a protest against a zoning ordinance, the front footage of the property so held could not be counted in determining the sufficiency of the petition of protest.  Accordingly, where a petition which was deficient in that the number of front footage was not represented, the board of aldermen could pass the ordinance by a mere majority vote and the ordinance was valid.  Marks v. Bettendorf's, Inc. (A.), 337 S.W.2d 585.

(1962) Where evidence fell short of demonstrating that two of the five aldermen voting for zoning amendment ordinance had the direct financial interest in its passage, court refused to set aside purely legislative action of city's legislative body on ground of public policy.  Coffin v. City of Lee's Summit (A.), 357 S.W.2d 211.

(1962) City council did not clearly, beyond reasonable doubt, act arbitrarily, capriciously or unlawfully in amending zoning ordinance to extend commercial zone and permitting bowling alley proprietor to enlarge parking lot.  Miller v. Kansas City (A.), 358 S.W.2d 100.

(1978) To change zoning regulations, there must be actual votes affirmatively cast by three-fourths of all councilmen existing at time of vote, and therefore, abstention cannot be considered as concurring with the majority vote in favor of amendment.  State ex rel. Stewart v. King (A.), 562 S.W.2d 704.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: City of Springfield v. Goff, 918 S.W.2d 786 (Mo. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Springfield v. Goff, 918 S.W.2d 786 (Mo. 1996). · cites it 40× “Section 89.060, RSMo 1994, permits thirty percent of the landowners affected by a zoning change to file a petition protesting the change to the legislative body of a municipality.”
Whitaker v. City of Springfield, 889 S.W.2d 869 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 47× “18, is not inconsistent with state law in that it does not prohibit that which section 89.060, RSMo 1988, allows, nor allow that which section 89.”
Marks v. Bettendorf's, Inc., 337 S.W.2d 585 (Mo. Ct. App. 1960). · cites it 14× “" § 89.060 RSMo 1949, 7 V.A.M.S. All that is required under this statute is that the protest petition be signed by owners of ten per cent or more of the areas of the land in question and this statute does not require a majority in number of the resident owners of the area in…”
Robinson v. City of Raytown, 606 S.W.2d 460 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 16× “ct R-3 (Residential, Low Rise, Multi-Family); that in 1977 an application was filed with the Raytown Planning and Zoning Commission to rezone certain property, including that owned by plaintiffs, from District R-3 (Residential, Low Rise, Multi-Family) to District R-l…”
Strandberg v. Kansas City, 415 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. 1967). · cites it 10× “The other contention is that the ordinance did not receive a vote of three-fourths of the City Council as required by § 89.060, RSMo 1959, because the vote of the mayor was required for its passage and he was disqualified from voting because of a “conflict of interest”.”
City of Louisiana v. Branham, 969 S.W.2d 332 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 9× “Defendants contend that ordinance is invalid because it was not enacted in compliance with the notice and public hearing requirements of Section 89.060 RSMo 1994, 2 the statute authorizing a municipal legislative body to change zoning laws.”
McCarty v. City of Kansas City, 671 S.W.2d 790 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 9× “Appellants contend in their point relied on that the trial court erred in failing to declare void the ordinance approving the revised development plan because the ordinance did not receive the required three-fourths majority vote in accordance with § 89.060, RSMo.1978. 2 That…”
Dahman v. City of Ballwin, 483 S.W.2d 605 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 11× “The record shows that this petition complied with the requirements of § 89.060, in that it contained the signatures of the owners of at least ten per cent of the area of land adjacent to the 78-acre tract.”
State ex rel. Stewart v. King, 562 S.W.2d 704 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 5× “Opponents to the rezoning duly filed a protest, which had the effect under Section 89.060 RSMo 1969 of requiring a “favorable vote of three-fourths of all the members of the legislative body.”
Schmitt v. City of Hazelwood, 487 S.W.2d 882 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 6× “7111 was an amendment of the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City and therefore the requirements of Section 89.060 V.A.M.S. control. This is so, he contends, because the City by the terms of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, Ordinance No.”
State Ex Rel. Childress v. Anderson, 865 S.W.2d 384 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “Respondents argue that to construe the charter provisions so as to allow zoning measures to be enacted through the initiative would conflict with state law, specifically § 89.060 R.S.Mo.1986. (All statutory references are to R.”
State Ex Rel. Sims v. Eckhardt, 322 S.W.2d 903 (Mo. 1959). · cites it 4× “050 is general in nature and directs municipal legislative bodies to provide for the manner in which zoning regulations, restrictions' and boundaries shall be determined, established, and enforced, “and * * * from time to time" amended, supplemented or changed,” and also…”
Show all 22 citing cases →
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.