Description: Developer's lawsuit challenging City of Virginia Beach's denial of application to rezone property for residential development on the grounds that the developer failed to account for sea level rise in its stormwater analysis.
Argos Properties II, LLC v. City Council for Virginia Beach
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/24/2019 Order Petition dismissed with prejudice. The court issued an order finding that the developer failed to make a prima facie case for any of its counts and that the City's actions were not ultra vires. The court dismissed the petition with prejudice. 04/24/2019 Ruling Challenge to denial of application dismissed. Virginia Court Dismissed Challenge to Denial of Application for Residential Development in Flood-Prone Area. A Virginia trial court reportedly ruled on April 24, 2019 that the Virginia Beach City Council properly denied a developer’s application to build a residential development in an area prone to flooding. The developer had contended that the City acted outside of its authority and arbitrarily and capriciously by requiring the developer to provide a stormwater analysis that accounted for 1.5 foot sea level rise and heavier storms. As of May 5, 2019, a written order from the court was not available. 10/18/2018 Ruling Request to dismiss counts denied. On October 18, 2018, the court reportedly denied a request to throw out some of the claims asserted in the lawsuit. 05/17/2018 Petition for Review Download Petition for review and complaint filed. Developer Challenged Denial of Rezoning Application Where City Said Stormwater Plans Needed to Account for Sea Level Rise. A developer filed a lawsuit in Virginia state court asserting that the Virginia Beach City Council unlawfully denied its application for a proposed rezoning of a 50-acre property for residential development on the grounds that the developer failed to provide a stormwater analysis that accounted for 1.5 foot sea level rise and based on other flooding concerns. The developer asserted that the defendants’ actions were arbitrary and capricious and ultra vires and that the defendants had imposed conditions on its rezoning application that violated its Equal Protection rights.