Stoney Quinto Jr. and Stoney Quinto Sr. v. City of Fairmont Planning Comm.
16-1063
| W. Va. | Nov 3, 2017Background
- Petitioners (Stoney Quinto Jr. and Sr.) operate a used-car business on parcels at Morgantown and Maryland Avenues in Fairmont; property was BB zoning pre-2005, rezoned NMU under Fairmont’s 2005 comprehensive plan.
- Under NMU zoning petitioners’ auto-sales use became a permitted nonconforming use subject to abandonment rules until Fairmont amended the code in 2015 to list automotive sales as a conditional use in NMU.
- Petitioners applied to rezone their parcels from NMU to MCC in 2010, 2014, and again in 2015; the commission denied the 2015 application as inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and as a spot-zoning request.
- City council adopted the commission’s October 22, 2015 denial on November 10, 2015; petitioners sought certiorari review in Marion County Circuit Court, which denied relief on October 27, 2016.
- Petitioners appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court contesting the standard of review and the merits; the Supreme Court affirmed, applying the deferential standard for zoning decisions and finding the commission’s denial not plainly wrong.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review — should deferential zoning standard apply? | Petitioners: Planning commission’s decision is planning, not zoning; deferential Dixon/Wolfe standard should not apply. | Commission/City: Decision sought rezoning (a zoning issue); deferential standard for zoning decisions applies. | Court: Nature of decision controls; this was a zoning decision so deferential standard applies. | |
| Whether petitioners’ existing use remained a nonconforming use or became a conditional use after 2015 amendments? | Petitioners: Their used-car business was a grandfathered nonconforming use entitled to protection; rezoning needed to preserve broader BB uses. | Petitioners argued they lost rights when classified as nonconforming and sought MCC to recover prior rights. | Commission/City: 2015 code amendment made auto sales a conditional (permitted) use in NMU, so the use was no longer nonconforming. | Court: Held the 2015 amendment rendered auto sales a conditional use; petitioners’ use was not a nonconforming use. |
| Whether rezoning to MCC was required to allow future alternative uses (e.g., fueling, drive-thru) | Petitioners: Rezoning needed to permit other commercial uses they might pursue in future. | Commission/City: Petitioners did not identify any specific intended alternative use; their present and stated intent was to remain a used-car lot (already allowed conditionally). | Court: Held no rezoning warranted because petitioners offered no concrete alternative use and their current use is permitted as a conditional use. | |
| Whether commission’s denial was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or plainly wrong | Petitioners: Other former BB properties were rezoned to MCC, suggesting inconsistent treatment and error. | Commission/City: Neighborhood character and proximity to residences justified NMU; recent code amendment addressed auto sales without rezoning; denial was consistent with comprehensive plan. | Court: Found commission made required findings that rezoning was not consistent with the plan and no unanticipated changes occurred; denial not plainly wrong and was upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Far Away Farm, LLC v. Jefferson County Board of Zoning Appeals, 222 W.Va. 252 (2008) (presumption that zoning board acted correctly; reversal only if erroneous law, plainly wrong facts, or beyond jurisdiction)
- Wolfe v. Forbes, 159 W.Va. 34 (1975) (articulates deferential standard for review of zoning decisions)
- Poole v. Berkeley County Planning Commission, 200 W.Va. 74 (1997) (definition and treatment of nonconforming uses)
- McFillan v. Berkeley County Planning Commission, 190 W.Va. 458 (1993) (‘‘grandfather’’ exception for preexisting lawful uses)
- Potomac Edison Co. v. Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Comm’n, 204 W.Va. 319 (1998) (distinguishing zoning—what uses are allowed—from planning—how uses are undertaken)
- Kaufman v. Planning & Zoning Comm’n of City of Fairmont, 171 W.Va. 174 (1982) (planning vs. zoning distinction referenced)
- Corliss v. Jefferson County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 214 W.Va. 535 (2003) (conditional use is lawful if conditions met and differs from nonconforming use)
- Harding v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 159 W.Va. 73 (1975) (framework for conditional uses)