Ray O. Harrison v. Town of Eleanor, a municipal corporation, No. 21886 (W. Va. July 15, 1994) (Workman, J.): 191 W.Va. 611, 447 S.E.2d 546:
Reversing a judgment for a landowner who sued after a municipality revoked the issuance of building permits, the Court held the ordinance in question to be a building rather than a zoning ordinance, holding that a building ordinance enacted pursuant to W. Va. Code § 8-12-13 involves the permissible methods of contruction upon land, whereas a zoning ordinance enacted pursuant to W. Va. Code § 8-24-39 involves the permissible uses of land.
In re: Petition of G. Samuel and Jeanne C. Skeen, No. 21819 (W. Va. February 17, 1994) (Neely, J.): 190 W.Va. 649, 441 S.E.2d 370:
Reversing the denial of an application for a special use zoning exemption to operate a home babysitting service, the Court held that whereas a variance relates primarily to a use of property prohibited in the area in question, the right to a special exception or conditional use is automatic if the zoning board finds compliance with the with the standards for special exceptions or conditional uses set forth in the zoning ordinance.
Marion V. McFillan, Jr. v. Berkeley County Planning Commission, No. 21667 (W. VA. December 13, 1993) (Miller, J.): 190 W.Va. 458, 438 S.E.2d 801:
Affirming the denial of a request for an exemption from county subdivision regulations in order to expand an existing mobile home park, the Court held (1) a county or municipality may create a planning commission, pursuant to W. Va. Code § 8-24-1, et seq., to develop a comprehensive plan for zoning, building restrictions, and subdivision regulations; (2) a county or municipality may adopt all or part of a comprehensive plan developed by a planning commission; (3) W. Va. Code § 8-24-1, et seq., allows a nonconforming use exemption enacted thereunder to apply to any regulation that restricts the use of land; (4) a nonconforming use is one that existed lawfully prior to the enactment of land-use regulations; (5) nonconforming uses are permitted to continue, pursuant to "grandfather" exceptions, until they are abandoned; (6) a nonconforming use ordinarily may not be expanded into areas of the subject property where the nonconforming use did not previously exist; and (7) land-use regulations will not constitute an unconstitutional taking of property if such regulations can be reasonably found to promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public and do not destroy all economic uses of the property.
State ex rel. Ruel Foster, Larry Schwab, Robert Cyphert, Donald Trevorrow, Barbara Hock and Betty McClain v. The City of Morgantown, No. 21671 (W. Va. June 10, 1993) (McHugh, J.): 189 W.Va. 433, 432 S.E.2d 195:
Rejecting an attempt to submit to a referendum a decision to amend a city's zoning ordinance to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages in certain restaurants, the Court held that a municipal charter provision, granting to qualified voters of a municipality the power of referendum to require reconsideration of any ordinance may not supersede W. Va. Code § 8-24-23, which does not authorize referenda with respect to amendments to zoning ordinances.
H.R.D.E., Inc. v. Zoning Office of the City of Romney and the City of Romney, No. 21346 (W. Va. April 26, 1993) (McHugh, J.): 189 W.Va. 283, 430 S.E.2d 341:
Where housing project developer expended $95,000 in reliance upon an earlier decision by the city permitting the project despite conflicts with the city's proposed zoning ordinance, the Court determined that the project constituted a nonconforming use, holding that although the right to a nonconforming use when there is something less than actual use is generally determined from the circumstances presented, the following factors should be considered: (1) whether the landowner has made substantial expenditures; (2) whether the landowner acted in good faith; (3) whether the landowner had notice of the proposed zoning ordinance prior to commencing the project; and (4) whether the expenditures could apply to other uses for the land.
Stop and Shop, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Westover, et al., No. 19197 (W. Va. November 29, 1990) (Neely, C.J.): 184 W.Va. 168, 399 S.E.2d 879:
Rejecting a landowner's attempt to expand its parking lot onto property adjoining its grocery store, the Court held that a retail store operating on land zoned commercial cannot rely on the grandfather clause for nonconforming uses found in W. Va. Code § 8-24-50 to allow it to expand its conforming use into a residential area.
Par Mar, an Ohio corporation v. The City of Parkersburg, a West Virginia municipal corporation, No. 19487 (W. Va. October 25, 1990) (McHugh, J.): 183 W.Va. 706, 398 S.E.2d 532:
Rejecting a landowner's claim that a zoning ordinance was invalid because it permitted activities on one side of a street that it prohibited on the other, the Court held that a zoning ordinance necessarily involves line drawing, often using existing streets as a boundary, and that such boundaries are not ipso facto "arbitrary and unreasonable" so as to invalidate the application of a zoning ordinance.
Steven L. Bittinger and Douglas Alexander, d/b/a Cornerstone Properties v. The Corporation of Bolivar, a West Virginia municipality, and the Bolivar Planning Commission, No. 19254 (W. Va. July 20, 1990) (Brotherton, J.): 183 W.Va. 310, 395 S.E.2d 554:
In ruling improper a municipality's rejection of building permits based on passage of a resolution placing a moratorium on new construction, the Court held that in order to suspend the operation of a building ordinance, the ordinance must be repealed or succeeded by another ordinance or an instrument of equal dignity, but may not be superseded by a resolution.