Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Matthew v. Smith

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 25, 1986No. 67396Published

1ConcurrenceRobertson, Judge

I concur in the result reached by the principal opinion; however, I disagree with the reasoning by which the opinion reaches that result.

The property for which the variance is sought in the present case is improved with two single-family dwellings. The house nearest the street is the original dwelling on the parcel. The other house is a renovation of, and addition to, the former garage, located on the back of the parcel. The zoning ordinance in question defines “lot” as follows:

A parcel of land occupied by, or intended for occupancy by, one principal building, unified groups [sic] of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Nigro v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
  2. Rosedale-Skinker Improvement Ass'n v. Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968
  3. Wilcox v. Zoning Board of AppealsNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
  4. Brown v. BeucMissouri Court of Appeals · 1964
  5. Bartholomew v. Board of Zoning AdjustmentMissouri Court of Appeals · 1957

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API