Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Collection

Argos Properties II, LLC v. City Council for Virginia Beach

Argos Properties II, LLC v. City Council for Virginia Beach ↗

CL18002289-00Va. Cir. Ct.4 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
05/24/2019
Decision
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
Decision
Challenge to denial of application dismissed.
–
A Virginia trial court reportedly <a href="https://pilotonline.com/news/government/local/article_f05e1e32-66e1-11e9-b07a-ff3214644d86.html">ruled</a> 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
Decision
Request to dismiss counts denied.
–
On October 18, 2018, the court <a href="https://pilotonline.com/news/government/article_932991fe-d318-11e8-89c8-33ffc0ab8651.html">reportedly</a> denied a request to throw out some of the claims asserted in the lawsuit.
05/17/2018
Petition
Petition for review and complaint filed.
View
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.