State ex rel. Stoyanoff v.

Berkeley
458 S.W.2d 305 (1970)

Facts

The City of Ladue enacted ordinances that created an architectural board (board) to review and approve
designs for buildings in the city prior to construction. The board was made up of architects and followed
strict procedures, involving public hearings and notice, before approving or denying proposals. Stoyanoff
owned land in the city and proposed to build a house. The house was of a more modern design than the
other houses in the neighborhood, which were very traditional. Stoyanoff's plans complied with all city
zoning regulations and ordinances. Nevertheless, the board denied the building permit. At Stoyanoff's
request, the state (Stoyanoff) (plaintiff) brought an action against Berkeley (defendant), the building
commissioner, claiming that the regulations constituted an arbitrary and capricious exercise of police
power. Stoyanoff claimed that the regulations were unconstitutionally vague and gave no guidance to the
board. Further, Stoyanoff argued that the property use restrictions caused an effective taking of property
without due process of law, in violation of the Missouri State Constitution. At the trial, a developer
testified that homes in the area would lose $60,000 to $85,000 in value if Stoyanoff were allowed to build
the home. This is largely due to the fact that LaDue is an expensive suburb with large residential lots and
very little commercial or industrial activity. The trial court granted summary judgment to Stoyanoff and
issued a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling Berkleley to issue the building permit. Berkeley
appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri.

Issue.

Whether the city governments delegation of authority without very specific standards delegated to a non-
elected Architectural Board was

Held

The Supreme Court reverses holding that the Trial Court erred in finding for Stoyanoff because the city
ordinances were vague and therefore the delegation of authority was unconstitutional, denying due
process. The Supreme Court held that the ordinances did in fact provide for clear rules based upon
maintaining property values, finding that there was due process.

The Architectural Board did not have specific standards to determine the conformity with proper
architectural standards in appearance and design, rather the factors focused on the valuation of property
values. There was a great amount of deference given to the committee to determine if the appearance
and design conformed to housing in the area. The provisions were quite vague, nevertheless the court
found them to be clear because of their focus on property values.