State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley

Decision Date14 September 1970
Docket NumberNo. 54911,No. 2,54911,2
Citation458 S.W.2d 305
PartiesSTATE of Missouri ex rel. Dimiter STOYANOFF and Joan T. Stoyanoff, his wife, Respondents, v. Robert BERKELEY, Building Commissioner, City of Ladue, Missouri, Appellant
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Cupples, Cooper & Haller, Ronald L. Cupples, Gary H. Sokolik, Clayton, for (relators) respondents.

Willson, Cunningham & McClellan, J. H. Cunningham, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.

PRITCHARD, Commissioner.

Upon summary judgment the trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel appellant to issue a residential building permit to respondents. The trial court's judgment is that the below-mentioned ordinances are violative of Section 10, Article I of the Constitution of Missouri, 1945, V.A.M.S., in that restrictions placed by the ordinances on the use of property deprive the owners of their property without due process of law. Relators' petition pleads that they applied to appellant Building Commissioner for a building permit to allow them to construct a single family residence in the City of Ladue, and that plans and specifications were submitted for the proposed residence, which was unusual in design, 'but complied with all existing building and zoning regulations and ordinances of the City of Ladue, Missouri.'

It is further pleaded that relators were refused a building permit for the construction of their proposed residence upon the ground that the permit was not approved by the Architectural Board of the City of Ladue. Ordinance 131, as amended by Ordinance 281 of that city, purports to set up an Architectural Board to approve plans and specifications for buildings and structures erected within the city and in a preamble to 'conform to certain minimum architectural standards of appearance and conformity with surrounding structures, and that unsightly, grotesque and unsuitable structures, detrimental to the stability of value and the welfare of surrounding property, structures and residents, and to the general welfare and happiness of the community, be avoided, and that appropriate standards of beauty and conformity be fostered and encouraged.' It is asserted in the petition that the ordinances are invalid, illegal and void, 'are unconstitutional in that they are vague and provide no standard nor uniform rule by which to guide the architectural board,' that the city acted in excess of statutory powers (§ 89.020, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.) in enacting the ordinance, which 'attempt to allow respondent to impose aesthetic standards for buildings in the City of Ladue, and are in excess of the powers granted the City of Ladue by said statute.'

Relators filed a motion for summary judgment and affidavits were filed in opposition thereto. Richard D. Shelton, Mayor of the City of Ladue, deponed that the facts in appellant's answer were true and correct, as here pertinent: that the City of Ladue constitutes one of the finer suburban residential areas of Metropolitan St. Louis, the homes therein are considerably more expensive than in cities of comparable size, being homes on lots from three fourths of an acre to three or more acres each; that a zoning ordinance was enacted by the city regulating the height, number of stories, size of buildings, percentage of lot occupancy, yard sizes, and the location and use of buildings and land for trade, industry, residence and other purposes; that the zoning regulations were made in accordance with a comprehensive plan 'designed to promote the health and general welfare of the residents of the City of Ladue,' which in furtherance of said objectives duly enacted said Ordinances numbered 131 and 281. Appellant also asserted in his answer that these ordinances were a reasonable exercise of the city's governmental, legislative and police powers, as determined by its legislative body, and as stated in the above-quoted preamble to the ordinances. It is then pleaded that relators' description of their proposed residence as "unusual in design' is the understatement of the year. It is in fact a monstrosity of grotesque design, which would seriously impair the value of property in the neighborhood.'

The affidavit of Harold C. Simon, a developer of residential subdivisions in St. Louis County, is that he is familiar with relators' lot upon which they seek to build a house, and with the surrounding houses in the neighborhood; that the houses therein existent are virtually all two-story houses of conventional architectural design, such as Colonial, French Provincial or English; and that the house which relators propose to construct is of ultramodern design which would clash with and not be in conformity with any other house in the entire neighborhood. It is Mr. Simon's opinion that the design and appearance of relators' proposed residence would have a substantial adverse effect upon the market values of other residential property in the neighborhood, such average market value ranging from $60,000 to $85,000 each.

As a part of the affidavit of Russell H. Riley, consultant for the city planning and engineering firm of Harland Bartholomew & Associates, photographic exhibits of homes surrounding relators' lot were attached. To the south is the conventional frame residence of Mrs. T. R. Collins. To the west is the Colonial two-story frame house of the Lewis family. To the northeast is the large brick English Tudor home of Mrs. Elmer Hubbs. Immediately to the north are the large Colonial homes of Mr. Alex Cornwall and Mr. L. Peter Wetzel. In substance Mr. Riley went on to say that the City of Ladue is one of the finer residential suburbs in the St. Louis area with a minimum of commercial or industrial usage. The development of residences in the city has been primarily by private subdivisions, usually with one main lane or drive leading therein (such as Lorenzo Road Subdivision which runs north off of Ladue Road in which relators' lot is located). The homes are considerably more expensive than average homes found in a city of comparable size. The ordinance which has been adopted by the City of Ladue is typical of those which have been adopted by a number of suburban cities in St. Louis County and in similar cities throughout the United States, the need therefor being based upon the protection of existing property values by preventing the construction of houses that are in complete conflict with the general type of houses in a given area. The intrusion into this neighborhood of relators' unusual, grotesque and nonconforming structure would have a substantial adverse effect on market values of other homes in the immediate area. According to Mr. Riley the standards of Ordinance 131, as amended by Ordinance 281, are usually and customarily applied in city planning work and are: '(1) whether the proposed house meets the customary architectural requirements in appearance and design for a house of the particular type which is proposed (whether it be Colonial, Tudor English, French Provincial, or Modern), (2) whether the proposed house is in general conformity with the style and design of surrounding structures, and (3) whether the proposed house lends itself to the proper architectural development of the City; and that in applying said standards the Architectural Board and its Chairman are to determine whether the proposed house will have an adverse affect on the stability of values in the surrounding area.'

Photographic exhibits of relators' proposed residence were also attached to Mr. Riley's affidavit. They show the residence to be of a pyramid shape, with a flat top, and with triangular shaped windows or doors at one or more corners.

Although appellant has briefed the point that it is a constitutional exercise of the police power for the Legislature to authorize cities to enact zoning ordinances, it is apparent that relators do not contest that issue. Rather, relators' position is that 'the creation by the City of Ladue of an architectural board for the purpose of promoting and maintaining 'general conformity with the style and design of surrounding structures' is totally unauthorized by our Enabling Statute.' (§§ 89.020, 89.040, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.) It is further contended by relators that Ordinances 131 and 281 are invalid and unconstitutional as being an unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of the police power (as based entirely on aesthetic values); and that the same are invalid as an unlawful delegation of legislative powers (to the Architectural Board).

Section 89.020 provides: '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.' Section 89.040 provides: 'Such regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and designed to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers; to promote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to preserve features of historical significance; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements. Such regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration, among other things, to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses, and with a view to conserving the values of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Board of Sup'rs of James City County v. Rowe, 740994
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1975
    ... ... , that once the road is constructed, it is to be maintained by the state ...         As the Board says, the police power is 'elastic' ... State v. Berkeley, 458 S.W.2d 305 (Mo.1970); Reid v. Architectural Board of Review, 119 Ohio ... ...
  • City of Independence v. Richards, WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 29, 1983
    ... ... State v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 1, 256 S.W. 474, 477 (banc 1923); C. Antieau, ... Id. at 484. Then, in State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley, 458 S.W.2d 305 (Mo.1970), an ordinance to create ... ...
  • Wintercreek Apartments v. City of St. Peters
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • March 21, 1988
    ...courts have previously interpreted § 89.020 to permit the regulation of structural nature and design. See State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley, 458 S.W.2d 305 (Mo.1970); City of Kirkwood v. City of Sunset Hills, 589 S.W.2d 31 Plaintiffs further contend that Ordinance No. 1100 is void as an a......
  • Morristown Road Associates v. Mayor and Common Council and Planning Bd. of Borough of Bernardsville
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • August 31, 1978
    ...217 (Sup.Ct.1955); Reid v. Architectural Board of Review, 119 Ohio App. 67, 192 N.E.2d 74 (Ct.App.1963); State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley, 458 S.W.2d 305 (Mo.Sup.Ct.1970); 41 A.L.R.3d In West Palm Beach v. State, supra, the test of definiteness was deemed not to have been met by an ordin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Property as Propriety
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 77, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...of their belief that doing so would not maximize preference-satisfaction in the aggregate. 106. See State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley, 458 S.W.2d 305, 308 (Mo. 1970). 107. See Frank Michelman, Toward a Practical Standard for Aesthetic Regulation, 15 PRAC. LAW. 36, 37 (1969). 108. See Stat......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT