Plaintiff (property developer) accuses Defendant (local government) of Arbitrary Zoning Denial

Virginia Court of Appeals Courthouse
Virginia Court of Appeals Courthouse
0Comments

A Virginia LLC is challenging a local government decision that could significantly impact its plans for a senior apartment complex. On February 24, 2026, 7147 Mechanicsville Turnpike, L.L.C. filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals of Virginia against the Board of Supervisors of Hanover County after their rezoning application was denied.

The dispute began in July 2023 when 7147 Mechanicsville Turnpike, L.L.C. submitted a request to rezone a 6.49-acre parcel from a business district to a multi-family residential district to build an apartment complex for seniors. The Hanover County Planning Commission recommended approval despite noting that the proposed net unit density exceeded the comprehensive plan’s limit. However, on November 8, 2023, the Board of Supervisors denied the request citing non-compliance with density guidelines and concerns about environmental impacts due to part of the land being in a Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Area.

In response, on December 7, 2023, the LLC filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Hanover County seeking declaratory judgment. They argued that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and should be voided. The LLC claimed their development would not disrupt traffic and highlighted support from some citizens and county planning staff who favored gross unit density calculations over net unit density.

The circuit court granted the Board’s motion craving oyer, allowing additional legislative records into evidence which included traffic impact analyses and public meeting transcripts. This action aimed to provide context beyond what was selectively presented by the plaintiff. Ultimately, the court sustained the Board’s demurrer based on these records showing that reasonable arguments existed both for and against rezoning—rendering it “fairly debatable” under Virginia law.

The LLC contends that their proposal met all necessary criteria under previous comprehensive plans and that denial based solely on new standards was discriminatory. They also argue that their financial proffers were not adequately considered by the Board or court as mitigating factors for any potential negative impacts.

Representing 7147 Mechanicsville Turnpike, L.L.C., Joseph M. Rainsbury and Thomas M. Wolf from O’Hagan Meyer PLLC have appealed this decision hoping to overturn it at higher judicial levels. The case is currently before Judges Beales, Ortiz, and Chaney with Judge Randolph A. Beales authoring this memorandum opinion under Record No. 1513-24-2.

Source: 1513242_7147_Mechanicsville_Turnpike_LLC_v_Board_of_Supervisors_of_Hanover_County_Opinion_Virginia_Court_of_Appeals.pdf


Related

Virginia Court of Appeals Judges

Former nurse alleges hospital employment caused PTSD and depression, court affirms compensation

A Virginia appellate court has upheld a decision awarding compensation to a former nurse who developed PTSD and major depressive disorder while working during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Virginia Court of Appeals Courthouse

Former student Sean Lohr accuses Virginia Tech board and official of First Amendment violations

A former Virginia Tech student, Sean Lohr, brought a lawsuit against the university’s Board of Visitors and an assistant director for student conduct, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights.

Virginia Court of Appeals Courthouse

Health insurance customer challenges arbitration clause in dispute with plan administrator and associations

A Virginia appeals court has reversed a lower court’s decision regarding whether a health insurance customer must arbitrate her claims against several organizations involved in selling her insurance.

Trending

The Weekly Newsletter

Sign-up for the Weekly Newsletter from Virginia Courts Daily.