About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2005 BYU L. Rev. 1625 (2005)
Architecture as Art - Not in My Neocolonial Neighborhood: A Case for Providing First Amendment Protection to Expressive Residential Architecture

handle is hein.journals/byulr2005 and id is 1641 raw text is: Architecture as Art? Not in My Neocolonial Neighborhood: A Case for Providing First Amendment Protection to Expressive Residential Architecture I. INTRODUCTION In the late 1960s in Landue, Missouri, Demiter and Joan Stoyanoff wanted to build a pyramid-shaped home with a flat roof, triangular windows, and doors positioned on the corners of the home.1 Although the Stoyanoffs' futuristic home conformed to all of the city's building and zoning requirements,2 the architectural review board denied the couple's request for a building permit because the home failed to conform to certain minimum architectural standards of appearance and conformity with surrounding structures.3 The board stated that its purpose was to prohibit unsightly, grotesque and unsuitable structures like the Stoyanoffs' proposed home.' Landue's mayor defended the board's decision and added that the Stoyanoffs' design was in fact a monstrosity of grotesque design,5 damaging to adjoining property values, and inapposite with the French Provincial, English Tudor, and Colonial architecture of the community.' The couple subsequently appealed the board's decision and won at the state circuit court.' Applying rational basis review, 1. Missouri ex ret. Stoyanoffv. Berkeley, 458 S.W.2d 305, 308 (Mo. 1970). 2. Id. at 306. 3. Id. 4. Id. 5. Id. at 307. 6. Id. 7. Id. at 308. The trial court initially found that the denial of the building permit was in violation of Missouri's takings clause. Id. at 306. The Building Commissioner, the individual ultimately responsible for issuing building permits, appealed the decision. Id. The case eventually reached the Missouri Supreme Court, at which point the Stoyanoffs argued that the architectural review board was not authorized by Landue's enabling statute. The relevant sections of the enabling statute authorized the community to promote the health, safety, morals and . . . general welfare of the community through the enactment of certain zoning ordinances. Id. at 308 (quoting Mo. REV. STAT. § 89.020 (1959)). The statute required that zoning ordinances be consistent with the community's comprehensive plan and give reasonable consideration, among other things, to the character of the district. Id. (quoting 1625

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most