Effective 28 Aug 1988

89.060. Change in regulations, restrictions and boundaries — procedure. — Such regulations, restrictions, and boundaries may from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed, modified or repealed. In case, however, of a protest against such change duly signed and acknowledged by the owners of thirty percent or more, either of the areas of the land (exclusive of streets and alleys) included in such proposed change or within an area determined by lines drawn parallel to and one hundred and eighty-five feet distant from the boundaries of the district proposed to be changed, such amendment shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of two-thirds of all the members of the legislative body of such municipality. The provisions of section 89.050 relative to public hearing and official notice shall apply equally to all changes or amendments.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 7416, A.L. 1988 H.B. 923)

Prior revision: 1929 § 7263

(1960) Where only one of the owners of property held by the entireties signed the petition for a protest against a zoning ordinance, the front footage of the property so held could not be counted in determining the sufficiency of the petition of protest. Accordingly, where a petition which was deficient in that the number of front footage was not represented, the board of aldermen could pass the ordinance by a mere majority vote and the ordinance was valid. Marks v. Bettendorf's, Inc. (A.), 337 S.W.2d 585.

(1962) Where evidence fell short of demonstrating that two of the five aldermen voting for zoning amendment ordinance had the direct financial interest in its passage, court refused to set aside purely legislative action of city's legislative body on ground of public policy. Coffin v. City of Lee's Summit (A.), 357 S.W.2d 211.

(1962) City council did not clearly, beyond reasonable doubt, act arbitrarily, capriciously or unlawfully in amending zoning ordinance to extend commercial zone and permitting bowling alley proprietor to enlarge parking lot. Miller v. Kansas City (A.), 358 S.W.2d 100.

(1978) To change zoning regulations, there must be actual votes affirmatively cast by three-fourths of all councilmen existing at time of vote, and therefore, abstention cannot be considered as concurring with the majority vote in favor of amendment. State ex rel. Stewart v. King (A.), 562 S.W.2d 704.