Central Place, LLC v. City of Morgantown Planning Commission
15-1057
| W. Va. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Campus Acquisitions filed a Type III site plan to build a mixed-use, up-to-120-foot building in Morgantown B-4 district: 89 residential units (331 bedrooms), ~7,649 sq ft nonresidential (≈3,435 sq ft retail), and 157 residential parking spaces.
- Central Place, LLC (adjacent owner) challenged the Planning Commission’s approval administratively to the BZA and via certiorari to the Monongalia County Circuit Court; BZA upheld the Planning Commission and the circuit court denied certiorari.
- Central Place appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, arguing errors on driveway separation, parking calculations, building height (comprehensive plan conflict), reliance on an outdated traffic study, and lack of construction staging space.
- Lower tribunals and the circuit court interpreted city ordinances to measure driveway separation at curb cuts, applied B-4 district parking rules (resulting in a 155-space minimum) rather than a strict mixed-use formula, and treated comprehensive/strategic plan height guidance as subordinate to specific zoning rules.
- Traffic study was considered adequate by City and WV DOT; temporary construction/street-closure issues were deemed outside site-plan review and under state control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1351.01(D)’s 30-ft separation prohibits any portion of a driveway coming within 30 ft of another driveway | Ordinance text prohibits any part of one driveway from being within 30 ft of another; driveway interior portions violate the rule | Measure separation from curb cuts/points where driveways enter public street (curb flares/curb lines); interior portions not governed by this section | Affirmed: separation measured at curb cuts; proposed curb cuts comply (deference to agency interpretation) |
| Proper parking calculation for the mixed-use development | Use "Dwelling, Mixed Use" formula (0.75 spaces per occupant or 1 per unit), yielding ~248 spaces plus nonresidential spaces | Apply B-4 district special rule: one space per residential unit for first occupants exception and 0.5 per occupant beyond first 22; results in 155 required spaces; nonresidential parking not additionally required here | Affirmed: B-4 district provisions govern; proposed 157 spaces meet requirement |
| Whether the Comprehensive Plan/Strategic Plan caps building height at 4 stories/50 ft, conflicting with zoning allowing up to 120 ft | Comprehensive/Strategic Plan mandatory language ("shall") limits height to 4 stories/50 ft | Specific zoning ordinance for B-4 sets maximum at 120 ft; comprehensive plan is guidance and does not override specific zoning | Affirmed: zoning ordinance controls; comprehensive plan is advisory and does not supersede specific height ordinance |
| Whether approval relied on an outdated/insufficient traffic study or whether construction staging/street-closure concerns permit denial | Increased commercial area required updated traffic study; absence prevented a complete review. Also, lack of staging space and likely street closures create safety and LOS impacts for denial | Traffic study was not mandatory and submitted study adequately covered commercial area; City and WV DOT found no LOS degradation. Construction staging and street closures are handled by building permits and state DOT, not site-plan review | Affirmed: no requirement to update study; study adequate; construction staging/street closure issues are outside site-plan approval authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Jefferson Orchards, Inc. v. Jefferson Cty. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 225 W. Va. 416 (appellate abuse-of-discretion standard for certiorari review of zoning board)
- Webb v. West Virginia Bd. of Med., 212 W. Va. 149 (administrative decisions reviewed under same standard the circuit court applied)
- Corliss v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 214 W. Va. 535 (agency statutory interpretation given great weight)
- Wolfe v. Forbes, 159 W. Va. 34 (presumption that BZA acted correctly but reversal required where board applied erroneous law or was plainly wrong)
- Jefferson Utilities, Inc. v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 218 W. Va. 436 (standards for reviewing BZA decisions)
- Singer v. Davenport, 164 W. Va. 665 (comprehensive plan is an aid/guideline and does not replace specific zoning regulations)