State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley

Facts

Dimiter and Joan Stoyanoff wanted to build a single-family house in Ladue, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis. The affidavits described Ladue as one of the finer residential areas, with expensive homes on lots of three fourths of an acre to three or more acres. The Stoyanoffs' plans were for an unusual house. Photographs showed a pyramid shape with a flat top and triangular windows or doors at one or more corners. They alleged that the plans met all existing building and zoning regulations. Ladue had enacted Ordinance 131, as amended by Ordinance 281. It created an Architectural Board of three architects to approve building plans. The ordinance's preamble said the city wanted to avoid unsightly, grotesque and unsuitable structures that harm the value of surrounding property and the welfare of residents. The building commissioner, Berkeley, refused a permit because the Board had not approved the plans. The city offered affidavits. A developer swore that nearby houses were virtually all two-story houses of conventional design, such as Colonial, French Provincial or English. He said the proposed house would clash with every other house in the neighborhood and substantially hurt the market value of nearby homes. A city planning consultant swore to the same effect and attached photographs of the neighboring Colonial and English Tudor homes.

Issues

1. Did Missouri's enabling statutes, Sections 89.020 and 89.040, authorize Ladue to create an architectural board that requires new houses to be in general conformity with surrounding structures?
2. Are the ordinances an unreasonable and arbitrary use of the police power because they rest on aesthetic factors?
3. Do the ordinances unlawfully delegate legislative power to the Architectural Board because their standards are inadequate?

Holding

Ladue's architectural board ordinances were valid. Section 89.040 supported them, and refusing a permit for a highly modernistic house in a traditional neighborhood did not appear to be arbitrary and unreasonable when the basic purpose served is the general welfare of persons in the entire community. The ordinances' general standards, with notice, hearings and an appeal, were not an unlawful delegation. The order compelling the permit was reversed.