JCV vs. CITY OF RANSON (REZONING CASE)
Summary — On November 5, 2020, JCV filed an amended complaint in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County asking for Declaratory Judgement and Damages. The complaint alleges that Ranson knowingly violated their comprehensive plan and engaged in illegal spot/contract zoning when the Ranson City Council approved the Industrial District Ordinance on June 30, 2020. The suit states that the Ordinance is therefore “invalid and void as to the matter of law as to all intended future uses of the Subject Property.” The complaint lists over two dozen examples of how Ranson’s comprehensive plan was violated.
In addition, the complaint alleges that, “The Industrial District Ordinance violates the express provisions prohibiting contract and/or spot zoning and the Industrial District Ordinance was orchestrated and passed to benefit the owners of the Jefferson Orchards parcel, and their successors in interest, to specifically allow industrial uses in an area not otherwise permitted.”
A jury trial has been requested. JCV awaits scheduling information from the Court.
JCV vs. RANSON CITY COUNCIL (ZONING CASE)
Summary — On December 13, 2018 JCV filed a lawsuit against the Ranson City Council asserting that changes made to Ranson’s zoning to permit industrial uses at Jefferson Orchards are invalid due to the failure to provide public notice as required by state law.
Updates — June 6, 2019 Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Hammer heard oral arguments regarding the zoning case.
— June 24, 2019, JCV provided to the Court proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Proposed Relief on the pending Motions.
— May 5, 2020, Judge David Hammer agreed with the claim in JCV’s lawsuit: The City of Ranson failed to provide adequate public notice when it changed its zoning to permit heavy industrial uses at Jefferson Orchard. The Court’s ruling emphasized the distinct statutes regarding zoning ordinances as directed by the WV State Code and noted that compliance is not at the unilateral discretion of a municipality. The Court ordered the City of Ranson to advise, by July 3, 2020, as to its intent to address “the now failed amendments in their procedures to attempt the Industrial District Ordinance.”
—June 16, 2020, The City of Ranson re-enacted the failed Industrial District Ordinance #2017- 302 with the first reading to amend the official zoning map. A public hearing and second reading occurred on June 23. The City Council voted in favor of the Ordinance five to one on June 23, but due to technical difficulties during the Zoom meeting, the decision was not validated. The Council reconvened on June 30 for the continuation of the public hearing and approval of the Ordinance.
—July 15, 2020, JCV submitted a motion to amend the complaint, presenting substantive examples where the Ordinance violated the 2012 Ranson Comprehensive Plan and Section 19-19 of the Ranson City Code (2018). The complaint asserted, “The zoning changes and map amendments further constitute illegal and improper spot zoning for the Rockwool facility, as special consideration was given for Rockwool’s zoning needs, and the area was classified in a manner differently from the surrounding area.” JCV concedes, since Ranson reissued the proper legal notice and held a public hearing, that the procedural error in the Zoning case has been corrected and is moot.
Ruling — September 11, 2020, the Circuit Court concluded the procedural claim was now moot and given the time that has passed and based on public policy, denied the amendments of substantive challenges against the Industrial District Ordinance and the case was dismissed.
Latest Update — October 8, 2020, JCV submitted a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, challenging Judge Hammer’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend. JCV expressed three Assignments of Error – why the Circuit Court erred in denying the Motion to Amend the First Amended Complaint – asking the Honorable Court to reverse the Order and remand the matter for further proceedings.
JCV vs. CITY OF CHARLESTOWN (THE BLUE PETITION CASE)
Summary — On June 17, 2019 JCV filed a “Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition” requesting that the Court order the City of Charles Town to comply with applicable state laws regarding the verified Protest Petition (aka the “Blue Petition”) presented by JCV on behalf of Charles Town residents to block support for a sewer pipeline for Rockwell in the absence of a super majority of the Charles Town City Council voting for it.
Updates — The Court held a hearing on the Blue Petition case on October 28, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. at the Jefferson County Courthouse.
—Thereafter, on November 12, 2019 JCV proposed a Writ of Mandamus from the Court to compel the City of Charles Town, to comply with both the subject Ordinances and applicable law, directing both the Charles Town City Council and Charles Town Building Commission to schedule a public hearing at which public hearings the Petitioners may present the subject Protest Petition for proper and further consideration.
Ruling — On November 18, 2020, the Circuit Court of Jefferson County granted the City of Charles Town’s Motion to Dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6), which it took under advisement following arguments received on October 28, 2019. Judge David Hammer ruled [the] Petitioners (JCV) have failed to state a claim for Prohibition, prohibiting the City of Charles Town from taking any further action on the Route 9 Sewer Extension. The Court concluded that the Lease Ordinance and Bond Ordinance are legislative acts to which a Writ of Prohibition will not lie, as [they] are not judicial acts.
The Court also ruled JCV failed to state a claim for Mandamus, because the City of Charles Town is not the entity issuing the revenue bonds for the Route 9 Extension. The Legislature gave the Building Commission (which is not a municipal governing body) its own authority to issue revenue bonds. The Court determined we did not have a clear legal right to requested relief under statute nor ordinances and for the same reason failed to identify a clear legal duty, to submit a written protest as the Building Commission substantially complied – meeting procedural requirements – by giving public notice and holding a public hearing on August 6, 2018, before the Bond Ordinance became effective on March 19, 2019. JCV presented the Protest Petition at a City Council meeting held on May 20, 2019, and again by counsel letter to both the City Council and Building Commission, dated May 31, 2019. W. Va. Code § 8-16-7 does not further require public notice or a public hearing after an ordinance becomes effective.
The Court briefly went on to state that JCV could have explored other adequate remedies to our concerns raised, through the Public Service Commission, the WV Department of Environmental Protection, or other land use public hearings.
JCV vs. THE CITY OF RANSON (VERTICAL WALL PERMIT CASE)
Summary — On September 17, 2019 JCV filed a “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” requesting that the Court order the City of Ranson to comply with applicable laws relating to the issuance of building permits to Rockwool. JCV contends that since sewer service has not been confirmed, Ranson should revoke Rockwool’s building permit; otherwise, they are not in compliance with Ranson City Code.
Latest Update — On September 24, 2019 the Judge granted Rockwool’s motion to intervene in the case. We are still awaiting a notice for a hearing on this case.
JCV vs. ROCKWOOL ET AL. (PILOT CASE)
Summary — On November 2, 2018 JCV filed the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the PILOT arrangement and asserting that Rockwool should not be given preferential treatment and should pay their fair share of taxes just like other Jefferson County taxpayers.
Ruling — On June 6, 2019 Judge Hammer heard arguments regarding the PILOT lawsuit and on August 8 issued his decision which stated that “[t]he Court agrees with the plaintiff’s contention that the PILOT is defective on its face: The only two essential parties to the PILOT are Rockwool and the JCDA. Absent the JCDA’s assent evidenced by a vote of its board, the PILOT is not an enforceable agreement – it is merely a proposal.” JCV is pleased with Judge Hammer’s decision in this matter since it held that the PILOT agreement was invalid even without needing to reach the issue of constitutionality.
JCV vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA (PSC CASE)
Summary — On July 12, 2018 the PSC approved Jefferson Utilities Inc.’s (JUI) application for an emergency certificate of convenience and necessity to extend water service to Rockwool — without a public hearing or public input. The PSC’s approval was conditioned on JUI’s petitioning to reopen the matter if there were any changes to the project (i.e. scope, financing); however, JUI did not do so. On January 23, 2019 JCV filed a complaint to the PSC asserting that the scope of Rockwool’s project had changed and that JUI should have filed a petition to reopen as required by the PSC’s July 2018 approval. JCV’s complaint was dismissed by the PSC on August 2, 2019.
Updates — On September 3, 2019 JCV appealed the PSC’s decision to dismiss the complaint to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia and the Court has scheduled a hearing for January 15, 2020.
— At the January 15, 2020 hearing, JCV maintained the Commission took no action on the complaint for the request for interim relief except to dismiss the complaint by the Order dated August 2, 2019, which is the subject of this appeal. The PSC contended “denying reopening of this certificate proceeding is consistent with law, Commission rules and case precedent,” and “the petition to reconsider the Procedural Order should be denied because the Project scope and plans have not changed and the certified public accountant for JUI attests that the changes to Project cost and the source of funding do not impact JUI rates.”
JCV argued in reply: The Commission Order unfairly characterized and improperly treated the Complaint, there were clear changes in the scope of the Project and this case is not moot.
Ruling – On June 15, 2020 The Supreme Court of Appeals of WV affirmed, “the Commission had not exceeded its statutory jurisdiction and powers, and there is adequate evidence to support the PSC’s findings,” dismissing JCV’s complaint. The Court found no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. Upon review, it was maintained that the Commission considered the merits of all the [JCV’s] arguments and found no basis to reopen the matter, for JCV did not present any new facts or substantive issues that were not adequately addressed in the certificate case. The Court stated, “Based upon our careful review of the record in this matter, we find that substantive result of the Commission’s final order is proper.”
JCV vs. JCDA (WATER LINE CASE)
Summary — On September 17, 2018 JCV filed a “Complaint for Injunctive Relief” petitioning the Court for an injunction to stop the Jefferson County Development Authority (JCDA) from taking any further actions regarding the approval and funding of the Jefferson Orchard Water Line Extension Project. JCV asserted that the JCDA violated state law and acted beyond its jurisdiction when it took actions to fund and/or begin construction of the waterline project before it had obtained a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity as required by state law.
Latest Update — JCV submitted a motion to dismiss this matter as moot based upon the JCDA’s withdrawal from the water line project. All parties agreed the case is moot and the case has been dismissed.
Montani Semper Liberie – that’s the state motto
Mountaineers are always free, and we are going to be free from Rockwool.
Please keep the financial resources coming so your legal brain trust can keep on working and we can pay the outside firms to do their job too! If you are an attorney and would like to volunteer your time to support our team, please email us at LCVLegalTeam@gmail.com.