A Virginia court has approved the rezoning of a parcel of land from business to agricultural use, after finding that the rezoning was consistent with the comprehensive plan and the public interest. The court rejected the arguments of a neighboring property owner, who claimed that the rezoning would adversely affect his property value and business prospects. The court also dismissed the claims of a civic association, who alleged that the rezoning was arbitrary and capricious.
The case involved a 10.5-acre parcel of land in Loudoun County, Virginia, which was owned by the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority (LCSA). The land was zoned for business use, and was adjacent to a wastewater treatment plant operated by LCSA. In 2021, LCSA applied to rezone the land to agricultural use, in order to use it for agricultural purposes, such as growing crops, raising livestock, or beekeeping. LCSA stated that the rezoning would reduce the environmental impact of the treatment plant, and provide educational and recreational opportunities for the public.
The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors (BOS) held a public hearing on the rezoning application, and received comments from various parties. Among them were a neighboring property owner, who owned a 5.5-acre parcel of land that was also zoned for business use, and a civic association, who represented the residents of a nearby subdivision. Both parties opposed the rezoning, and argued that it would harm their interests and the county’s economic development. They also claimed that the rezoning was inconsistent with the county’s comprehensive plan, which guides the future growth and development of the county.
The BOS approved the rezoning by a vote of 8 to 1, finding that the rezoning was compatible with the comprehensive plan and the public interest. The BOS also found that the rezoning would not adversely affect the neighboring properties, and that there was no evidence of arbitrariness or capriciousness in the decision. The neighboring property owner and the civic association appealed the BOS’s decision to the Circuit Court of Loudoun County, seeking to reverse the rezoning.
Ruling of the court
The court affirmed the BOS’s decision, and upheld the rezoning. The court applied the presumption of validity that attaches to legislative acts of local governing bodies, such as rezoning decisions. The court stated that the burden was on the appellants to prove that the rezoning was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, or that it violated the comprehensive plan or the public interest. The court also stated that it would not substitute its judgment for that of the BOS, and that it would defer to the BOS’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, unless they were clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
The court rejected the appellants’ arguments, and found that they failed to meet their burden of proof. The court held that the rezoning was consistent with the comprehensive plan, which designated the land as a transition area between rural and urban uses, and which encouraged agricultural and environmental uses in such areas. The court also held that the rezoning was in the public interest, as it would enhance the natural and scenic resources of the county, and provide educational and recreational benefits to the public. The court further held that the rezoning would not adversely affect the neighboring properties, as there was no evidence of any negative impact on their property value or business potential. The court also held that the rezoning was not arbitrary or capricious, as the BOS considered all the relevant factors and evidence, and made a rational and reasonable decision.
The court concluded that the BOS’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and that the appellants failed to show any error of law or abuse of discretion. The court therefore affirmed the rezoning, and dismissed the appeal.
