Opinion ID: 2505480
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the Appellees' project falls within the purview of the ordinance

Text: The focus of the instant appeal is predicated upon the circuit court's legal determination that Hurricane Municipal Ordinance §§ 936.01 to 936.44 does not apply to the construction of new residential housing development in the Appellees' subdivision. The Appellants argue that the circuit court erred in determining that the ordinance did not apply to the Appellees' project because it was neither new development nor redevelopment. The Appellants maintain that each individual home that has been built in the Appellees' subdivision was required to have a separate and individual building permit. Thus, the Appellants posit that each building permit application sought for the erection of a residential dwelling for the remaining lots in the Appellees' subdivision is new development as contemplated by Hurricane Municipal Ordinance § 936.20(b). On the other hand, the Appellees assert that the circuit court correctly concluded that the ordinance, by its express terms, does not apply to the Appellees' subdivision, as the ongoing development of the subdivision, [6] which began five years prior to the effective date of the ordinance, is neither new nor redevelopment. As previously mentioned, the term development is defined, in pertinent part, in the ordinance as any land disturbance that changes the runoff or erosion characteristics of a lot, tract, parcel of land, or any portion thereof, in conjunction with residential, ... construction, alteration, or modification that has the potential to change the runoff or erosion characteristics of a lot, tract, or parcel of land, or any portion thereof, in conjunction with residential, ... construction, alteration or modification. Hurricane Mun.Code § 936.03(m). The term development, however, is preceded by the word new in Hurricane Municipal Ordinance § 936.20(a). So, the requirements and standards for the stormwater management and erosion control comprehensive drainage plans shall apply to all new developments and redevelopment projects including the disturbance of land activities of any kind, on any lot, tract, parcel or land.... Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the resolution on the issue presented turns on whether building a new home on a lot in an existing or ongoing subdivision project is sufficient to trigger application of the ordinance. Where the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity the plain meaning is to be accepted without resorting to the rules of interpretation. Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Elder, 152 W.Va. 571, 165 S.E.2d 108 (1968). Further, this Court observed that the relevant statutes had to be read in pari materia and any ambiguous provisions in the statutes should be interpreted in such a manner as to avoid conflict and give effect to all of the provisions of the related sections of the statutes. Syllabus Point 1, in part, Carolina Lumber [ Co. v. Cunningham, 156 W.Va. 272, 192 S.E.2d 722 (1972)].... See also Syllabus Point 5, Fruehauf Corp. v. Huntington Moving & Storage Co., 159 W.Va. 14, 217 S.E.2d 907 (1975) (Statutes which relate to the same persons or things, or to the same class of persons or things, or statutes which have a common purpose will be regarded in pari materia to assure recognition and implementation of the legislative intent. Accordingly, a court should not limit its consideration to any single part, provision, section, sentence, phrase or word, but rather review the act or statute in its entirety to ascertain legislative intent properly.). Richards v. Harman, 217 W.Va. 206, 210, 617 S.E.2d 556, 560 (2005). There is no argument raised regarding any ambiguity in the subject ordinance, so this Court must accept the plain meaning of the ordinance before us. First, the term new is defined as beginning as the resumption or repetition of a previous act or thing. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 834 (11th ed.2005). Under this definition of the word new, the further development of the remaining lots in the Appellees' subdivision by the construction of additional homes is the repetition of the previous acts of constructing the existing homes. To this end, it is undeniable that the development of each additional lot within the Appellees's subdivision is new development to which the provisions of Hurricane Municipal Ordinance § 936.20 were intended to apply. Next, the Court must also read the entire ordinance in pari materia, rather than focusing upon a single word, in this case the word new, as the circuit court did. When the entire ordinance is examined, it is clear that the ordinance governs the Appellees' subdivision. For instance, Hurricane Municipal Ordinance § 936.10 provides No person(s), individual(s), landowners, developer(s), operator(s) or their assign(s) shall be allowed to develop or engage in land disturbing activities of any kind, on any lot, tract, parcel of land, or any portion thereof for residential ... development, redevelopment, addition or modification without obtaining and providing the appropriate Permits, including, but not limited to ... Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plan, or any/all documents, notices, agreements, bonds, or permits required by the City of Hurricane ... to manage stormwater or any/all other land disturbing activities regulated by the City.... Id. (emphasis added). Further, Hurricane Municipal Ordinance § 936.13(a) provides that (a) Any person(s), individual(s), landowner(s), developer(s), operator(s) or their assign(s) that intend to develop or engage in land disturbing activities of any kind, on any lot, tract, parcel of land or any portion thereof for development, redevelopment, construction, addition or modification work in the City watershed of the City must hold a pre-construction meeting with the Designated Manager prior to the initiation of any construction or land disturbing activities. ... Id. (emphasis added). Finally, under the enforcement provisions of the ordinance, [n]o person(s), individual(s), landowner(s), developer(s), operator(s), or their assign(s) shall construct or maintain any property, residence or business not in compliance with the standards of this Article. Hurricane Mun. Ord. § 936.19(a) (emphasis added). Based upon the foregoing, the City, in enacting the relevant ordinance, not only broadly defined development, to include any land disturbance, but also repeatedly provided throughout the ordinance that it governed developers, who are developing or constructing residential lots, tracts or parcels of land. Hurricane Mun. Ord. § 936.06(mm), § 936.10; and § 936.19(a). Accordingly, the Court holds that the provisions of Hurricane Municipal Ordinance §§ 936.01 to 936.44 (2005) govern all new development and redevelopment projects including the disturbance of land activities of any kind, on any lot, tract, parcel or land or portion thereof and, therefore, the construction of new residential homes in an existing subdivision falls within the purview of the ordinance. Because the Appellees seek to further develop the remaining lots in their subdivision by constructing residential homes on those lots, such development falls within the purview of the ordinance at issue and, therefore, the Appellees must comply with the requirements of the ordinance. Id. The circuit court further found, however, that the Defendants have blocked the completion of the remaining thirty homes under the claim that the City will not issue individual building permits without a stormwater retention plan for the entire subdivision, treating the project as a whole. The Defendants also raise the issue that the subdivision may have been built in phases as a reason to apply the new ordinance to the McClures' entire project. The Defendants cannot treat the project as one project for purposes of requiring and implementing a stormwater pond and then treat the construction project as individual homes under individual building permits for purposes of applying the ordinance to the project. On appeal, the Appellants argue that they could not agree more that the ordinance was clearly intended to apply to only those building permits issued after the date the ordinance was enacted. While it appears that the Appellants may have changed their position on the issue of requiring the Appellees to put in a stormwater retention plan for the entire subdivision, the express terms of Hurricane Municipal Ordinance § 936.20(a) provide that the stormwater management and erosion control comprehensive drainage plan requirements and standards apply only to new construction and redevelopment. Id. The Appellants, therefore, cannot require the Appellees to implement a stormwater management plan for that portion of the subdivision that has existing construction and, thus, is neither new development nor redevelopment. The ordinance applies only to any new construction or redevelopment on lots, tracts, parcels, land or any portion thereof in the subdivision.