Lamar Co., LLC v. City of Kansas City
2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1489
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Lamar appeals a trial court summary judgment upholding City's validity of a zoning-related ordinance.
- The Digital Sign Ordinance was enacted Sept 6, 2007, amending the zoning code to prohibit moving/animated signs; notice and hearings were properly conducted.
- A referendum delay postponed the Digital Sign Ordinance’s effective date to Nov 9, 2007, when it actually became effective.
- City adopted Pending Sign Legislation Ordinance Sept 27, 2007, delaying actions on permits that would be prohibited by the proposed amendment, with a six-month cap.
- Lamar sought declaratory relief challenging the Pending Sign Legislation Ordinance; City moved for summary judgment and won.
- Court held Lamar had no vested right to sign permits because no substantial prior nonconforming use existed; case deemed moot since Digital Sign Ordinance governs permits post-Nov 9, 2007.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot? | Lamar argues the Pending Sign Legislation Ordinance remains live and warrants review. | City contends the dispute is moot because Digital Sign Ordinance governs permits after Nov 9, 2007. | Mootness governs; appellate court dismisses the issue as moot. |
| Did Lamar acquire a vested right to sign permits under prior zoning? | Lamar contends a vested right existed by prior permits/uses supporting nonconforming use. | City argues no vested right since permits were not substantial steps to a nonconforming use. | Lamar had no vested right; permits do not confer vested rights absent substantial nonconforming use. |
| Does the Pending Sign Legislation Ordinance affect the controversy given the Digital Sign Ordinance’s effect? | Pending Ordinance validity could affect Lamar’s permit prospects prior to Digital Sign taking effect. | Once Digital Sign Ordinance took effect, it controlled, making Pending Ordinance irrelevant to the dispute. | Controversy lacks practical effect post-Nov 9, 2007; issue is moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver Cadillac Co. v. Christopher, 317 Mo. 1179 (Mo. 1927) (permits cannot create vested rights when zoning changes occur)
- Claudia Lee & Assocs., Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 297 S.W.3d 107 (Mo.App. W.D. 2009) (no vested nonconforming use without actual prior use or substantial reliance)
- Fleming v. Moore Bros. Realty Co., 251 S.W.2d 8 (Mo. 1952) (permits revoked if no vested right; reliance factors relevant)
- Veal v. Leimkuehler, 249 S.W.2d 491 (Mo.App. 1952) (good faith reliance in face of zoning changes scrutinized)