ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District has reversed a trial court’s decision that upheld a zoning ordinance enacted by the City of Brentwood, siding with Arch Energy L.C. in a dispute over property use regulations.
Arch Energy sued Brentwood after the city amended its zoning ordinance to prohibit gas stations as a conditional use within the Planned Development Overlay District where Arch Energy owns several properties, according to a March 18 decision filed in Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District.
The company, which operates a gas station and convenience store in the area, had plans to expand its operations.
However, the city’s new planning and development director proposed the zoning change, which was passed unanimously by the Board of Aldermen on March 7, 2022.
The central issue in the case revolved around the city’s failure to comply with statutory notice requirements.
"Because Appellant was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking a declaratory judgment and Respondent did not provide the requisite statutory notice before enacting the ordinance, we reverse the summary judgment of the trial court as to Count I and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," the judges wrote in the decision.
Although Brentwood published a notice in local newspapers ahead of a planned public hearing on Feb. 7, 2022, no hearing was held, and the meeting was continued to Feb. 22.
Notice of the rescheduled hearing was only provided via mail to local residents, without the legally required newspaper publication.
Arch Energy argued that the lack of proper notice invalidated the ordinance.
The trial court had previously granted summary judgment in favor of Brentwood, finding the city complied with the notice requirements and that Arch Energy failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
However, the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the absence of statutory notice rendered the ordinance void.
“Failing to give proper notice under Sections 89.050 and 89.060 renders an ordinance void,” the court stated, citing precedent from City of Louisiana v. Branham.
The court noted that the city’s mailed notices did not meet the standard of publication in a newspaper of general circulation, as required by law.
Additionally, the court rejected Brentwood’s argument that Arch Energy should have pursued administrative remedies before filing its lawsuit. The court determined that because Arch Energy challenged the ordinance’s validity on its face, administrative remedies were not applicable.
While Arch Energy also raised claims of inverse condemnation, unconstitutional takings, and the ordinance’s alleged unreasonableness, the appellate court found its ruling on the notice issue to be dispositive.
As a result, those additional claims were not addressed.
The decision reverses the lower court’s ruling and remands the case for further proceedings. Brentwood officials have not yet indicated whether they will seek further legal action.
The appellant is represented by Donald K Anderson Jr. and Benjamin D. Scrivner.
The respondent is represented by Peter J. Dunne and Maxwell L. Knudsen.
Attorneys declined to comment further on the case.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED112714