Jefferson County Vision, Inc. v. City of Ranson and Roxul USA, Inc., 20-0789

Jefferson County Vision (nonprofit) and nearby landowners Sutherland and Adams sued the City of Ranson after Ranson rezoned the Jefferson Orchards property and adopted a stack-height exemption; Rockwool planned a stone-wool plant on the site and intervened.
In 2017 Ranson adopted two ordinances: a Stack Ordinance exempting industrial smokestacks from height limits and an Industrial District Ordinance rezoning the property to permit heavy industrial uses.
Petitioners filed suit in December 2018 asserting only procedural challenges to both ordinances; Rockwool intervened and moved for judgment on the pleadings.
The circuit court granted judgment for respondents as to the Stack Ordinance but found the Industrial District Ordinance likely enacted without statutorily required notice; Ranson re-enacted that ordinance on June 30, 2020 with the court-recommended notice.
Petitioners sought leave (July 2020) to file a second amended complaint adding substantive spot‑zoning, contract‑zoning, and comprehensive‑plan claims; the court denied leave (Sept. 11, 2020) citing prejudice, lack of diligence, judicial estoppel, and futility.
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion and declining to entertain a ripeness argument raised for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend to add substantive zoning claims	Amendment timely and necessary to reach the merits; respondents would not be unfairly prejudiced	Delay was unreasonable; respondents prejudiced (duplicative motion practice, discovery burden, Rockwool investment reliance); amendments futile/judicial estoppel	Affirmed denial: court acted within discretion — grounds: prejudice, lack of diligence, futility, judicial estoppel
Whether Industrial District Ordinance claims ripened only when the ordinance was re-enacted June 30, 2020	Re-enactment cured procedural defect and ripened substantive claims (original ordinance void ab initio)	Petitioners did not preserve that contention below; they previously took a contrary position	Court declined to reach the new ripeness theory on appeal as forfeited; circuit court found petitioners knew of claims earlier
Whether new legal theories may be raised first on appeal	May raise ripeness/new theory now because of re-enactment	Issues not raised below are forfeited; appellate courts generally will not consider new theories	Court applied preservation rule and refused to consider issues not presented to the circuit court

Perdue v. S. J. Groves & Sons Co., 152 W. Va. 222, 161 S.E.2d 250 (1968) (trial court has discretion to grant or deny leave to amend; denial not reversible absent abuse)
State ex rel. Vedder v. Zakaib, 217 W. Va. 528, 618 S.E.2d 537 (2005) (lack of diligence in asserting claims justifies denial of leave to amend)
State v. Costello, 245 W. Va. 19, 857 S.E.2d 51 (2021) (issues not raised below generally cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
State ex rel. Cooper v. Caperton, 196 W. Va. 208, 470 S.E.2d 162 (1996) (to preserve an issue for appeal, a party must articulate it with sufficient particularity below)
State v. LaRock, 196 W. Va. 294, 470 S.E.2d 613 (1996) (failure to object at trial typically results in forfeiture of appellate review)