350 S.W.3d 57
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Outcom sought to erect two outdoor advertising signs on property zoned M-1 in Peculiar and submitted two applications for special use permits on May 26, 2006 with fee and supporting documents.
- City refused to accept the special use permit applications, telling Outcom that no special use permit was required and provided sign-permit forms instead.
- City issued a letter to Outcom acknowledging a good faith attempt to submit related permit applications and to establish priority for later submissions.
- Outcom submitted sign-permit applications on June 6, 2006; one was withdrawn and the remaining sign location later received a Missouri Outdoor Advertising Permit under the Missouri Billboard Act.
- City later advised that a special use permit was required for outdoor advertising signs under section 420.130 of the Peculiar Code, which Outcom did not obtain.
- Ordinance amended Chapter 420 on October 3, 2006; Board of Zoning Adjustments denied Outcom’s appeals; mandamus action granted to Outcom in 2010, which the City appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 420.130 required a special use permit for outdoor ads at the time | Outcom: no special-use permit needed; sign permit sufficed. | Peculiar: section 420.130 required a special-use permit for outdoor advertising. | Yes; requires a special use permit, precluding ministerial permit issuance. |
| Whether the Building Inspector had a ministerial duty to issue a sign permit | Outcom argues ministerial duty exists once permit application conforms. | City contends permit issuance depends on obtaining the required special use permit. | No ministerial duty where sign violates 420.130 due to missing special use permit. |
| Effect of the October 3, 2006 amendment to Chapter 420 on the dispositive issue | Amendment clarifies or changes requirements; implies prior ambiguity. | Amendment clarifies existing law; prior code not ambiguous. | Amendment does not create ambiguity; prior clear requirement persisted. |
| Whether the final judgment disposed of all issues and is proper for appeal | Judgment resolved mandamus action. | Judgment disposed of related certiorari issues as well. | Judgment is final for appeal. |
| The correct interpretation of the interplay between 420.050(B) and 420.130 | Sign permit could issue if sign complied with Chapter 420. | Compliance with 420.130 is prerequisite to permit issuance. | Clear interplay; 420.130 controls issuance when applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kugler v. Maryland Heights, 817 S.W.2d 931 (Mo.App. E.D.1991) (sign permit ministerial unless statutory requirements fail)
- Hyde Park Housing Partners v. Director of Revenue, 850 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. banc 1993) (plain-statement of statutory interpretation presumes effect of every word)
- Moynihan v. Gunn, 204 S.W.3d 230 (Mo. App. E.D.2006) (rules of statutory construction; plain meaning governs)
- Cousin's Advertising, Inc. v. BZA of Kansas City, 78 S.W.3d 774 (Mo. App. W.D.2002) (apply plain meaning to ordinance language)
- Orla Holman Cemetery, Inc. v. Plaster Trust, 304 S.W.3d 112 (Mo. banc 2010) (interpretation of statutory language and plain meaning)
- Andresen v. Bd. of Regents of Mo. Western College, 58 S.W.3d 581 (Mo. App. W.D.2001) (clarification vs. change in existing law)
- Flipps Nine, Inc. v. Missouri Property & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 941 S.W.2d 564 (Mo. App. E.D.1997) (amendments may clarify; not always change existing law)
- State ex rel. City of Desloge v. St. Francois County, 245 S.W.3d 855 (Mo. App. E.D.2007) (summary judgment standard in mandamus context)