FILED
February 9, 2017
No. 15-1223 – Coffman et al v. Nicholas County Commission et al released at 3:00 p.m.
RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
WORKMAN, J., concurring: OF WEST VIRGINIA
I concur in the majority’s affirm of the circuit court’s grant of summary
judgment on behalf of respondents and agree that the annexation by minor boundary
adjustment was proper. I write separately, however, to underscore that the crux of
petitioners’ grievance appears to be, not with the annexation, but with the purported use
of the subject property. Given the state of record, it would appear that petitioners have
residual opportunities to challenge the use of the property, to whatever extent such issues
are properly presented below and/or become ripe for adjudication.
As discussed by the majority, the subject property appears to not be
properly zoned, as yet, for the operation of the “salvage yard” at issue. Moreover, the
circuit court’s order did not address the issues of statutory exceptions to licensing
requirements, the interplay of the City of Summersville ordinance, and public nuisance.
These matters were held in abeyance and the only issue presented to this Court pertains to
the annexation by minor boundary adjustment, which was made fully and finally
appealable by the circuit court’s order. The circuit court’s order suggests that significant
factual development remains as to matters not encompassed within this appeal and which
appear to more squarely vindicate petitioners’ grievances.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth hereinabove, I respectfully concur.
1