LaFarge North America, Inc. sought a conditional use permit to operate a proposed asphalt or concrete plant on land it owned in the County that was in an area zoned as an Agricultural and Forest Management District (AMF). Following a public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve the permit application.
The County zoning ordinance contained detailed procedures for the review of conditional use permit applications, as well as for protest of a decision by the planning and zoning commission with regard to a conditional use permit. The law provides, that in the event a protest is filed with the County Commission, any conditional use permit approved by the planning and zoning commission will not go into effect until after the entire matter has been reviewed by the County Commission. The County Commission is required to hold a hearing, and then to make a determination in accordance with a set of specified criteria set forth in the zoning ordinances. The ordinances empower the County Commission to affirm, reverse, or modify, in whole or in part, a determination of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Schultz, a nearby property owner, filed a protest with the County Commission with respect to the granting of the conditional use permit by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Following a public hearing, the County Commission denied Schultz’s protest. Schultz then filed a petition in the circuit court seeking judicial review of Commission’s denial of his protest.
The Eastern District of Missouri found that the appeal was filed prematurely and therefore unripe for judicial review. The Court explained that Schultz was challenging the denial of his protest to the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision to approve LaFarge’s application for a conditional use permit, but this had no direct or immediate effect on the interest of any party. The Court continued to explain that all that the County Commission did so far was to deny the protest, but they had not yet made a determination as to whether the permit approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission would be sustained. Therefore, since further steps remain in the review process, and since LaFarge cannot proceed with the proposed plant by virtue of the protest denial, and court review at this stage in the proceedings would be speculative.
Schultz v. Warren County, 2008 WL 1721759 (Mo. App. E.D. 4/15/2008).
The opinion may be accessed at: http://www.courts.mo.gov/Courts/PubOpinions.nsf/6c38d75d12b7d96c8625661f004bc89e/67043408a5cb0f7e8625742b004808e3?OpenDocument
Categories:
