Section 89.020

Title VII CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES

Chapter 89

Effective - 28 Aug 1989, 4 histories, see footnote   (history) 

  89.020.  Powers of municipal legislative body — group homes, classification, standards, restrictions — enforcement of zoning beyond lake shorelines, when, how — foster homes, classifications of. — 1. For the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals or the general welfare of the community, the legislative body of all cities, towns, and villages is hereby empowered to regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the density of population, the preservation of features of historical significance, and the location and use of buildings, structures and land for trade, industry, residence or other purposes.

  2. For the purpose of any zoning law, ordinance or code, the classification single family dwelling or single family residence shall include any home in which eight or fewer unrelated mentally or physically handicapped persons reside, and may include two additional persons acting as houseparents or guardians who need not be related to each other or to any of the mentally or physically handicapped persons residing in the home. In the case of any such residential home for mentally or physically handicapped persons, the local zoning authority may require that the exterior appearance of the home and property be in reasonable conformance with the general neighborhood standards. Further, the local zoning authority may establish reasonable standards regarding the density of such individual homes in any specific single family dwelling neighborhood.

  3. No person or entity shall contract or enter into a contract which would restrict group homes or their location as defined in this section from and after September 28, 1985.

  4. Any county, city, town or village which has a population of at least five hundred and whose boundaries are partially contiguous with a portion of a lake with a shoreline of at least one hundred fifty miles, shall have the authority to enforce its zoning laws, ordinances or codes for one hundred yards beyond the shoreline which is adjacent to its boundaries. In the event that a lake is not large enough to allow any county, city, town or village to enforce its zoning laws, ordinances or codes for one hundred yards beyond the shoreline without encroaching on the enforcement powers granted another county, city, town or village under this subsection, the counties, cities, towns and villages whose boundaries are partially contiguous to such lake shall enforce their zoning laws, ordinances or orders under this subsection pursuant to an agreement entered into by such counties, cities, towns and villages.

  5. Should a single family dwelling or single family residence as defined in subsection 2 of this section cease to operate for the purpose as set forth in subsection 2 of this section, any other use of such home, other than allowed by local zoning restrictions, must be approved by the local zoning authority.

  6. For purposes of any zoning law, ordinance or code the classification of single family dwelling or single family residence shall include any private residence licensed by the division of family services or department of mental health to provide foster care to one or more but less than seven children who are unrelated to either foster parent by blood, marriage or adoption. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to relieve the division of family services, the department of mental health or any other person, firm or corporation occupying or utilizing any single family dwelling or single family residence for the purposes specified in this subsection from compliance with any ordinance or regulation relating to occupancy permits except as to number and relationship of occupants or from compliance with any building or safety code applicable to actual use of such single family dwelling or single family residence.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 7412, A.L. 1957 p. 274, A.L. 1959 H.B.  493, A.L. 1985 H.B. 552, A.L. 1989 S.B. 11)

(1957) City ordinance delegating to city council the discretionary power to enforce zoning regulations held valid.  State ex rel.  Ludlow v. Guffey (Mo.) 306 S.W.2d 552.

(1957) Power of eminent domain vested in school districts for the selection of sites and location of schools, cannot be controlled by city zoning ordinance.  State ex rel. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Ferris (Mo.), 304 S.W.2d 896.

1958) Where zoning of area as local business district was part of comprehensive zoning plan, it was not proper to look only to the uses of property in the particular district to determine whether the classification was reasonable as applied to owner's property, and further, where there were 35 residences and but three or four non- conforming uses in the district, the classification preventing use of owner's property as supper club was not unreasonable.  Downing v. City of Joplin (Mo.), 312 S.W.2d 81.

(1959) Since kinds of structures subject to control listed by this section do not include churches, it does not authorize cities to control their location within a city.  Congregation Temple Israel v. City of Creve Coeur (Mo.), 320 S.W.2d 451.

(1961) Under this section the city has no right to impose upon landowners aesthetic standards for buildings they choose to erect. Accordingly ordinance requiring buildings to conform to certain architectural standards held void.  State ex rel. Magidson v. Henze (A.), 342 S.W.2d 261.

(1962) Where individual operated a junkyard within an area subsequently zoned as two-family residential, he could not be deprived of his right to operate the junkyard unless he had abandoned the junkyard business.  State ex rel. Capps v. Bruns (A.), 353 S.W.2d 829.

(1963) Provision of zoning ordinance that in class A residential districts buildings were to be used only for single-family dwellings, churches, public schools and accessory buildings was unconstitutional as applied to landowners who had operated a private school for profit before incorporation of village and adoption of zoning ordinance and who were denied permit to erect an additional school building on their land.  Urnstein v. Village of Town and Country (Mo.), 368 S.W.2d 390.

(1963) Refusal to rezone vacant tract classified as residential to commercial was unreasonable and arbitrary and infringed plaintiff's rights under due process clause where maintenance of residential zoning bore no substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals or general welfare and where property was three times more valuable as commercial property and was not suited to residential development in view of adjacent commercial development and traffic conditions.  Huttig v. City of Richmond Heights (Mo.), 372 S.W.2d 833.

(1967) The exercise of the zoning powers delegated to cities including the enactment of ordinances amending the comprehensive plan is a legislative function and, as a general rule, courts will not inquire into the interests or motives of the members of a municipal legislative function.  Strandburg v. Kansas City (Mo.), 415 S.W.2d 737.

(1976) Denial to members of a religious society of whom only one was a priest and the others were laymen who did not have the religious ministry as a primary and regular vocation, of an occupancy permit to occupy an existing residence as their home in an area zoned single-family residential was not a denial of their constitutional rights under the freedom-of-worship and due process clauses of the Missouri Constitution.  Association for Educational Development v. Hayward (Mo.), 533 S.W.2d 579.

(1979) The zoning power of a municipality under §§ 89.010 to 89.140 does not authorize a municipality to restrict or limit use of public property for public purposes.  City of Kirkwood v. City of Sunset Hills (A.), 589 S.W.2d 31.

(1993) Section is plain and unambiguous and provision of statute that addresses homes where unrelated physically or mentally handicapped persons reside does not require city to allow up to  eight nonrelated individuals recovering from alcohol or drug abuse to live in single residence in single-family residential district.  City of St. Joseph v. Preferred Family Healthcare, Inc., 859 S.W.2d 723 (Mo. App. W.D.).

(1994) Where statute provides that, for zoning purposes, single family residence includes group homes for eight or fewer physically or mentally handicapped persons and up to two caretakers, statute does not provide ceiling or express state policy limiting group homes to eight residents.  Oxford House-C v. City of St. Louis, 843 F.Supp. 1556 (E.D. Mo.).