any definitions provided by the legislature are binding on the courts
How later courts described this case
- any definitions provided by the legislature are binding on the courts
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
In the Missouri Court of Appeals
Eastern District
DIVISION FOUR
HARMONY POINTE, LLC, ) No. ED112620
)
Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of St. Charles County
vs. ) 2311-CC00860
)
CITY OF COTTLEVILLE, MO, et al., ) Honorable W. Christopher McDonough
)
Appellants. ) Filed: March 11, 2025
The City of Cottleville, Missouri, (the “City”) appeals the trial court’s judgment reversing
a decision by the City’s Board of Adjustment (“Board of Adjustment” or “Board”) upholding a
stop work order issued by the City to Harmony Pointe, LLC (“Harmony Pointe”). 1 We affirm
the trial court’s judgment reversing the Board of Adjustment’s decision.
I. BACKGROUND
Harmony Pointe planned to construct a mixed-use project consisting of multi-family
apartments and other commercial developments (the “project”) on its property located along
Highway N in Cottleville, Missouri (the “project site”). In April 2022, Harmony Pointe applied
to the City for approval of the final plan for the project. On May 18, 2022, the City approved the
project’s final plan application.
1
Appellants in this appeal include the City, Chairman of the Board Michael Louis, and Board members Nathan
Tormula, Tom Longinette, and Jonathan Layfield.
By July 2022, Harmony Pointe had applied to the City seeking approval of Harmony
Pointe’s construction plan for the project. After several changes to the construction plan based
on comments from multiple utility providers, Harmony Pointe submitted a revised construction
plan to the City on October 24, 2022. On November 1, 2022, the City finally approved Harmony
Pointe’s construction plan, which included detailed requirements for excavation and grading of
the project site along with the clearing of trees and other vegetation from the site.
On November 7, 2022, the City issued a building permit to Harmony Pointe, and
Harmony Pointe had geotechnical engineers drill borings in multiple locations at the project site
in order to test the quality of the soil and assess other subsurface conditions. Then, in the Spring
of 2023, Harmony Pointe had various contractors complete work on the project site. On March
28, an engineering company staked the project site for tree clearing. On March 29 and 30, a
grading company performed “clearing activities,” including clearing trees from the project site.
On May 4, the engineering company surveyed and staked the corners of a building on the project
site along with offsets from the building. On May 7, Harmony Pointe’s general contractor
delivered and erected a job board at the project site. On May 9, the general contractor met with
Ameren to review overhead power lines in relation to the project. On four separate days between
May 9 and 15, the engineering company performed “hydroexcavation” on the project site, which
involved the use of heavy machinery to add water to the soil and dig into it. As of May 15, the
engineering company had begun fabricating steel settlement plates for use on the project site.
Ultimately, Harmony Pointe paid a total of $60,176.45 for the aforementioned work completed
on the project site between November 7, 2022, and May 15, 2023.
On May 19, 2023, the City issued Harmony Pointe a stop work order. The stop work
order claimed that Harmony Pointe “ha[d] not begun construction on the [p]roject in accordance
2
with . . . [s]ection 405.390[(C)]” of the City’s municipal code and prohibited any activity in
furtherance of the project. The City’s order quoted from section 405.390(C) of the City’s
municipal code, which provides that “[a]pproval of the final plan in a [Planned Unit
Development] shall expire and be of no effect one (1) year after the date of approval unless
construction is begun and diligently pursued in accordance with the approved plan.”
Accordingly, the City issued the stop work order purportedly because construction had not begun
on the project prior to May 18, 2023, and therefore the final plan approved by the City on May
18, 2022, expired and had no effect.
Harmony Pointe appealed the City’s issuance of the stop work order to the Board of
Adjustment, and a hearing was subsequently held before the Board on July 20, 2023. At the end
of the hearing, two Board members voted to rescind the City’s stop work order and two Board
members voted to uphold it, which resulted in the City’s stop work order being upheld. The
Board then voted to adopt the City’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shortly
thereafter.
Harmony Pointe appealed the Board’s decision upholding the stop work order to the trial
court. The trial court reversed the Board’s decision and declared the City’s stop work order null
and void, finding Harmony Pointe began construction on the project prior to May 18, 2023. This
appeal followed.2
2
To avoid unnecessary repetition, additional facts relevant to Harmony Pointe’s arguments on appeal will be set
forth in Section II.B. of this opinion.
3
II. DISCUSSION
Harmony Pointe raises two points on appeal. 3 The first point argues the Board erred in
upholding the stop work order because the order was not authorized by law under section
405.390(C) of the City’s municipal code. In the second point on appeal, Harmony Pointe
similarly argues the Board erred in upholding the stop work order because the order was not
authorized by law under section 405.400 of the City’s municipal code. Because we find the first
point dispositive to this appeal, we need not reach the second point.
A. Standard of Review
On appeal, this Court reviews the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Board of
Adjustment rather than the trial court’s judgment. See Antioch Community Church v. Board of
Zoning Adjustment of City of Kansas City, 543 S.W.3d 28, 33 (Mo. banc 2018); Moto, Inc. v.
Board of Adjustment of City of St. Louis, 88 S.W.3d 96, 99 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). The scope of
our review is limited to determination of whether the Board’s decision “is authorized by law and
is supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.” See Antioch, 543
S.W.3d at 34 (citation omitted).
In this case, Harmony Pointe does not allege any error as to the competency or
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Board’s decision, and instead argues the Board erred
in its interpretation and application of certain provisions of the City’s municipal code.
Therefore, this Court reviews the decision of the Board of Adjustment to determine whether it is
authorized by law. See State ex rel. Vandenboom v. Board of Zoning Adjustment of City of
3
Because the trial court reversed the decision of the Board of Adjustment and this Court reviews the decision of the
Board rather than the trial court, Harmony Pointe was required to file the first brief in this appeal as the party
aggrieved by the Board’s decision. See Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.05(e) (2024); Antioch Community Church
v. Board of Zoning Adjustment of City of Kansas City, 543 S.W.3d 28, 33 (Mo. banc 2018); Moto, Inc. v. Board of
Adjustment of City of St. Louis, 88 S.W.3d 96, 99 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002).
4
Kansas City, 633 S.W.3d 446, 456 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). Whether the decision is authorized
by law is a legal question subject to de novo review. Antioch, 543 S.W.3d at 34.
B. Point One on Appeal
Harmony Pointe’s first point on appeal argues the Board erred in upholding the City’s
stop work order because the order was not authorized by law under section 405.390(C) of the
City’s municipal code. We agree.
The Board of Adjustment in this case found that “[c]onstruction under the [f]inal [p]lan
and related to the [p]roject had not begun on or before May 18, 2023,” and therefore “[t]he
[f]inal [p]lan expired . . . and is of no further force and effect.” The Board’s decision hinged
upon its finding that the tasks completed by Harmony Pointe on the project prior to May 18,
2023, did not qualify as “construction” under the Board’s interpretation of section 405.390(C) of
the City’s municipal code.
Municipal codes and ordinances are interpreted using the same rules governing the
interpretation of statutes. City of St. Peters v. Roeder, 466 S.W.3d 538, 541, 543-44 (Mo. banc
2015). The “primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to legislative intent as
reflected in the plain language of the statute at issue.” Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 202 (Mo.
banc 2014) (citation omitted). Courts look to other rules of statutory interpretation only when
the meaning is ambiguous or would lead to an illogical result that defeats the purpose of the
legislation. Id. “In determining legislative intent, no portion of a statute is read in isolation, but
rather is read in context to the entire statute, harmonizing all provisions.” Aquila Foreign
Qualifications Corp. v. Director of Revenue, 362 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Mo. banc 2012). Finally,
statutory interpretation should not be hyper-technical, but reasonable and logical. Ivie, 439
S.W.3d at 203.
5
Section 405.390(C) of the City’s municipal code provides that “[a]pproval of the final
plan in a [Planned Unit Development] shall expire and be of no effect one (1) year after the date
of approval unless construction is begun and diligently pursued in accordance with the approved
plan.” Id. The parties agree and the record supports that the applicable date of approval of the
final plan for the project is May 18, 2022, for purposes of applying section 405.390(C). Thus,
Harmony Pointe was required to begin “construction” on the project prior to May 18, 2023, in
order to avoid expiration of the final plan’s approval under section 405.390(C). See id.
It is undisputed by the parties that Harmony Pointe completed the following work on the
project between November 7, 2022, and May 15, 2023: borings were drilled in multiple locations
on the project site; the project site was staked for tree clearing; trees were cleared from the
project site; the project site was surveyed and corners of a structure and offsets from that
structure were staked; a job board was delivered and erected at the project site;
“hydroexcavation” of the project site was performed over the course of four days; and steel
settlement plates were at least partially fabricated for use on the project site. The operative
question on appeal is whether any or all of this work constitutes “construction” under section
405.390(C).
The City’s municipal code contains no explicit definition of the term “construction” that
is directly applicable to section 405.390(C). See id.; section 405.020 (providing definitions for
chapter 405 of the City’s municipal code); see also Ivie, 439 S.W.3d at 203 (any definitions
provided by the legislature are binding on the courts). Accordingly, the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this case defined “construction” by isolating the term and looking to its
dictionary definition. The Board found that because Harmony Pointe had not “combined or
6
arranged parts[] or elements[] into a structure or composite whole,” the tasks completed on the
project “do not qualify as ‘construction.’”
However, in determining whether the work completed by Harmony Pointe on the project
constitutes “construction” under the plain language of section 405.390(C), we cannot read the
term in isolation. See id.; Ivie, 439 S.W.3d at 202; Aquila, 362 S.W.3d at 4. Instead, we must
view the term “construction” in the context of the entire section of the municipal code at issue
and harmonize all provisions. See Aquila, 362 S.W.3d at 4; see also Roeder, 466 S.W.3d at 541,
543-44.
Section 405.390(C) of the City’s municipal code states that “[a]pproval of the final plan
in a [Planned Unit Development] shall expire and be of no effect one (1) year after the date of
approval unless construction is begun and diligently pursued in accordance with the approved
plan.” (emphasis added). Harmony Pointe’s construction plan for the project, which was
approved by the City in November 2022, was part of the record before the Board of Adjustment.
The approved construction plan includes detailed requirements for “excavations, grading, [and]
filling”; a discussion of the removal of “natural vegetation”; and grading notes regarding “the
clearance of [] stumps, trees, bushes, shrubs, and weeds.” In other words, a significant portion of
the work completed by Harmony Pointe on the project prior to May 18, 2023 – including the
clearing of trees from the project site and four days’ worth of excavation work at the site – was
specifically contemplated in the project’s construction plan approved by the City.
This Court declines to apply a hyper-technical definition of the term “construction” to
categorize the work done by Harmony Pointe on the project. See Ivie, 439 S.W.3d at 203.
Rather, the plain language of section 405.390(C) combined with the project’s construction plan
leads to the logical and reasonable conclusion that the significant amount of work done by
7
Harmony Pointe prior to May 18, 2023, qualifies as “construction” in accordance with the City’s
approved plan. See id.; Ivie, 439 S.W.3d at 202-03. Therefore, the decision of the Board of
Adjustment upholding the stop work order was not authorized by law because the City’s
approval of the project’s final plan had not expired under section 405.390(C). See id.; Antioch,
543 S.W.3d at 34. Point one is granted.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the trial court’s judgment reversing the Board of Adjustment’s
decision is affirmed.
ROBERT M. CLAYTON III, Judge
John P. Torbitzky, P.J., and
Michael S. Wright, J., concur.
8