Henry v. Jefferson County Commission
637 F.3d 269
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Henry owned multiple parcels totaling 13.69 acres in Jefferson County, WV, with a residence on Parcel A and his mother on Parcel B.
- A 1988 zoning ordinance classified the land as rural-agricultural, allowing a CUP process for higher density; Henry sought a CUP for 76 townhouses in 1994 but was denied.
- Henry's 1994 CUP denial followed LESA scoring (39.04) and community concerns; the WV Supreme Court remanded for factual findings, and the BZA again denied on remand.
- In 2001 Henry obtained another CUP for 51 units (later limited to 14 by density considerations); opponents appealed and the circuit court remanded for more findings.
- Lewandowski, a Planning Commission member, publicly opposed Henry in 2004 but recused himself before the 2004–2005 hearings; Henry sold the property in 2006.
- Henry pursued several federal suits (Henry I–IV) and WV state takings claims; the district court granted summary judgment against him on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| entitlement to a larger CUP under WV law | Henry was entitled to 51 units per ordinance and Far Away Farm guidance. | Planning Commission had discretion to grant only 14 units based on density and other concerns. | Henry not entitled to 51-unit CUP; smaller CUP within discretion. |
| regulatory takings from CUP grant | 14-unit CUP reduced value, constituting a taking under Penn Central. | Regulatory action did not deprive value or function as a taking; feasible uses remained. | No regulatory taking; damages not shown under Penn Central standards. |
| denial to rebuild restaurant as a taking | erroneous zoning guidance caused failure to rebuild, constituting a taking. | Instruction by zoning official cannot override procedures; no taking under Williamson finality. | Not a taking; administrative finality and procedures preserved. |
| substantive due process challenge to CUP process | Zoning process violated substantive due process by denying entitlements. | Discretionary zoning decisions involve legitimate variations; no fundamental right implicated. | No substantive due process violation; ordinary zoning decisions left intact. |
| procedural due process challenge to CUP review | Opposition and recusal concerns tainted the process and access to courts. | Recusal and ordinary political disagreement do not constitute misconduct invalidating the process. | No due process violation; proceedings accorded proper process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sunrise Corp. of Myrtle Beach v. City of Myrtle Beach, 420 F.3d 322 (4th Cir. 2005) (takings analysis begins with whether government interfered with rights)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (regulatory takings framework and Penn Central factors)
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (three-factor test for regulatory takings)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (total economic deprivation and takings framework)
- Pa. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1922) (regulatory limits on property as potential taking)
- Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (takings claim preconditions require state-court compensation avenue)
- Front Royal and Warren County Indus. Park Corp. v. Town of Front Royal, 135 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 1998) (investment-backed expectations and takings inquiry)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (U.S. 2009) (due process concerns in judicial affiliation (recusal-like) context)