State v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment

578 S.W.3d 860

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 30, 2019

DocketWD 81913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 578 S.W.3d 860 (State v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 578 S.W.3d 860 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant CKC Holdings, L.L.C. applied for a special use permit to build a self-storage facility on approximately 30 acres of land in unincorporated Platte County. The Platte County Board of Zoning Adjustment ("BZA") denied CKC's application. CKC petitioned the Circuit Court of Platte County for judicial review. The circuit court affirmed the BZA's decision. CKC appeals, arguing that the BZA decision was not based on substantial and competent evidence and was against the weight of the evidence; that the BZA issued inadequate factual findings; and that one of the BZA's members should have been disqualified due to bias. We affirm.

*861Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum which sets forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant CKC Holdings, L.L.C. applied for a special use permit to build a self-storage facility on approximately 30 acres of land in unincorporated Platte County. The Platte County Board of Zoning Adjustment ("BZA") denied CKC's application. CKC petitioned the Circuit Court of Platte County for judicial review. The circuit court affirmed the BZA's decision. CKC appeals, arguing that the BZA decision was not based on substantial and competent evidence and was against the weight of the evidence; that the BZA issued inadequate factual findings; and that one of the BZA's members should have been disqualified due to bias. We affirm.

*861Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum which sets forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 S.W.3d 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bd-of-zoning-adjustment-moctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack