Opinion ID: 1205032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Variance

Text: In maintaining that it was improperly denied a variance, Shannondale argues: first, the provisions of the Ordinance dealing with the granting of variances are unconstitutionally vague; second, the Commission's decision to deny Shannondale a variance is contrary to the facts; and third, the denial of the variance violated Shannondale's right to equal protection. We begin by examining the variance provisions of the Ordinance to determine if those provisions are unconstitutionally vague. In order to obtain relief from the explicit requirements of the Ordinance, a developer can, under Section 17.1 of the Ordinance, request a variance. Section 17.1 provides that a variance: ... may be granted by the Planning Commission only when it is determined that: a) The request is not contrary to the public interest. b) A literal enforcement of this Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. c) The request is not the result of a self-imposed hardship. d) The spirit of this Ordinance will be observed and substantial justice done. These variance guidelines are similar to the other variance guidelines. In Mustard v. The City of Bluefield, 130 W.Va. 763, 766, 45 S.E.2d 326, 327 (1947), quoting a similar ordinance allowing a variance, Bluefield allowed a variance when such variance, modification or interpretation shall remain in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, so that the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community shall be conserved and substantial justice done. W.Va.Code, 8-24-55(4) [1969] provides similar variance guidelines for boards of zoning appeals: The board of zoning appeals shall:       (4) Authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. In Syllabus Point 3, Hartsock-Flesher Candy Co. v. Wheeling Wholesale Grocery Co., 174 W.Va. 538, 328 S.E.2d 144 (1984), modified on other grounds, Gibson v. W.V. Dept. of Highways, 185 W.Va. 214, 406 S.E.2d 440 (1991), we applied a less restrictive test when the vagueness doctrine is raised concerning economic matters. It is appropriate under the Due Process Clause vagueness doctrine to apply a less restrictive test to statutes or ordinances involving economic matters in which criminal penalties are not at issue. When we apply the appropriate less restrictive test, we find that section 17.1 of the Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague because it provides a reasonable notice of the important issues to those seeking a variance. Having determined that the Ordinance's variance guidelines are not unconstitutionally vague, we turn to Shannondale's argument that the denial of the variance is contrary to the facts. Our general standard of review affords a presumption of correctness to the Commission's actions. Syllabus Point 3, Harding v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of the City of Morgantown, 159 W.Va. 73, 219 S.E.2d 324 (1975), provides: While on appeal there is a presumption that a board of zoning appeals acted correctly, a reviewing court should reverse the administrative decision where the board has applied an erroneous principle of law, was plainly wrong in its factual findings, or has acted beyond its jurisdiction. Syllabus point 5.,[sic] Wolfe v. Forbes, [159] W.Va. [34], 217 S.E.2d 899 (1975). In this case, the Commission's denial of the variance was noted in the minutes of the Commission's December 13, 1994 meeting. The minutes reflect the details of the variance, the reasons supporting the variance, the vote on the variance and that there was much discussion on the matter. The minutes do not reflect the reasons why the Commission denied the variance. [3] In Harding, 159 W.Va. at 82, 219 S.E.2d at 330, we noted that findings of fact by an administrative body are necessary for a proper review by both the circuit court and this Court. Harding provided the following rationale for requiring such findings of fact: Without such findings it would not be possible for the circuit court upon certiorari or this Court upon writ of error to determine whether the conditional use sought by the applicant before the board violated any of the conditions required before the granting of such a conditional use. In other words, these review procedures would be worthless if it could be said that written findings are not necessary, for there would be nothing to review.... [sic] Miernyk [v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals], supra, [155 W.Va. 143] at 148[, 181 S.E.2d 681 at 684 (1971)]. Harding, 159 W.Va. at 82, 219 S.E.2d at 330. This rationale led us to require an administrative body vested with the power to grant special exceptions to zoning ordinances to set forth the factual basis of its determination.... Syllabus Point 4 of Harding states: Where the power to pass upon special exceptions or conditional uses allowable by a zoning ordinance has been delegated to an administrative body, the body must set forth the factual basis of its determination so that a reviewing court may ascertain whether the administrative decision conforms to the standards in the ordinance for the particular action taken. See In re Petition Skeen, 190 W.Va. 649, 441 S.E.2d 370 (1994) (board of zoning appeals must make written findings of fact when a conditional use is sought). Similar to Harding, we remand this case to the circuit court with directions to also remand the case to the Commission directing the Commission make the requisite findings of fact. Our remand is without restriction, and therefore, the Commission may exercise its discretion to decide whether to conduct merely a reconsideration or a full hearing. The relief ordered in this case is similar to the relief provided in Harding. Syllabus Point 5 of Harding states: When a reviewing court has determined that there was reversible error in an administrative decision and the cause is remanded without restrictions to the administrative body, that tribunal is vested with discretion to decide whether to conduct a reconsideration merely or a full rehearing. Because of our decision remanding this case for findings of fact, Shannondale's equal protection argument is not relevant and we decline to discuss it. C.