Kaufman v. Planning and Zoning Commission
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
298 S.E.2d 148 (1982)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Fairmont, West Virginia’s zoning ordinance complied with state statutes. The ordinance specified traffic impacts and other objective criteria for the local planning-and-zoning commission (commission) (defendant) to consider in evaluating development proposals. The ordinance’s criteria omitted more subjective considerations such as potential impacts on neighborhood demographics or property values. Fairmont zoned its Watson Hill neighborhood for multifamily development. Harry Kaufman (plaintiff) sold his property in Watson Hill to Gold Construction Company (Gold) (plaintiff), which sought the commission’s approval for a proposal to develop the property for low-rent, multifamily public housing. Gold’s proposal met all of Fairmont’s zoning criteria. Nevertheless, the proposal attracted vociferous and widespread community disapproval for technical reasons, such as the impact on local roads, and also for subjective reasons, such as the negative impact an influx of low-income renters might have on local property values. The commission cited technical reasons for unanimously rejecting Gold’s proposal. Gold convincingly addressed each of those objections and resubmitted its proposal. Once again, the commission unanimously rejected the proposal, this time for the subjective reasons voiced by Gold’s opponents. Kaufman and Gold sued the commission and appealed the trial court’s affirmation of the commission’s action to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McGraw, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
