Missouri § 89.090 Board of adjustment — powers, exception for Kansas City.

Missouri Statutes

§ 89.090 — Board of adjustment — powers, exception for Kansas City.

Missouri § 89.090

Title VIICITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES

Ch. 89Zoning and Planning

This text of Missouri § 89.090 (Board of adjustment — powers, exception for Kansas City.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 89.090 (2026).

Text

1. The board of adjustment shall have the following powers:

(1)To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of sections 89.010 to 89.140 or of any ordinance adopted pursuant to such sections;

(2)To hear and decide all matters referred to it or upon which it is required to pass under such ordinance;

(3)In passing upon appeals, where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of such ordinance, to vary or modify the application of any of the regulations or provisions of such ordinance relating to the construction or alteration of buildings or structures or the use of land so that the spirit of the ord

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

1. The board of adjustment shall have the following powers:

(1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of sections 89.010 to 89.140 or of any ordinance adopted pursuant to such sections;

(2) To hear and decide all matters referred to it or upon which it is required to pass under such ordinance;

(3) In passing upon appeals, where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of such ordinance, to vary or modify the application of any of the regulations or provisions of such ordinance relating to the construction or alteration of buildings or structures or the use of land so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done, provided that, in any city with a population of three hundred fifty thousand or more inhabitants which is located in more than one county, the board of adjustment shall not have the power to vary or modify any ordinance relating to the use of land.

2. In exercising the above-mentioned powers such board may, in conformity with the provisions of sections 89.010 to 89.140 , reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. The concurring vote of four members of the board shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision, or determination of any such administrative official, or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which it is required to pass under any such ordinance or to effect any variation in such ordinance except as provided in section 305.410 .

Legislative History

(RSMo 1939 § 7418, A.L. 1992 H.B. 1434 & 1490, A.L. 1993 S.B. 56, A.L. 1996 H.B. 956, A.L. 2008 H.B. 1888) Prior revision: 1929 § 7265 (1955) Board of Adjustment of St. Louis held entitled to appeal from judgment reversing its order under zoning ordinance allowing use of building as funeral parlor in area otherwise zoned as four-family residential area. Cunningham v. Leimkuehler (A.), 276 S.W.2d 633. (1957) Board of Adjustment exceeded its jurisdiction in granting a permit to build a duplex in area zoned for single family dwellings only where applicant did not show unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties, notwithstanding section on zoning allowing special permits. Wilson v. Douglas (A.), 297 S.W.2d 588.