The Virginia Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the City Council for the City of Salem's approval of a rezoning application by HopeTree Family Services. The case, Carlos B. Hart, Jr. v. City Council for the City of Salem (Record No. 1537-25-3), centered on whether the City Council violated local zoning laws when it approved a second application from HopeTree, which Hart argued was essentially the same as a previously approved application.
The court ruled on August 18, 2026, that the City Council acted within its rights. This decision affects local residents and organizations involved in zoning matters, clarifying the interpretation of local zoning laws regarding the resubmission of applications.
Background
Carlos B. Hart, Jr., a resident of Salem, filed the lawsuit against the City Council and HopeTree Family Services after the City Council approved a second rezoning application from HopeTree. HopeTree, a nonstock corporation that provides services for at-risk children and youth, owns approximately 62 acres of land in Salem that was originally zoned for residential use.
In November 2023, HopeTree submitted its first application to rezone the property from residential single-family (RSF) to Planned Unit District (PUD). After public hearings, the City Council approved this application in June 2024. Hart and other residents subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming procedural defects in the approval process. While this lawsuit was pending, HopeTree submitted a second application in August 2024, which Hart argued was substantially similar to the first and therefore should not have been considered.
The City Council and HopeTree argued that the first application was not denied or withdrawn, and thus the one-year bar under Salem Code § 106-520(D) did not apply. The case eventually reached the Virginia Court of Appeals after the Circuit Court for the City of Salem dismissed Hart's complaint with prejudice.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the City Council and HopeTree, affirming the lower court's decision to dismiss Hart's complaint. The court found that the City Council was not barred from considering the second application because the first application had been approved, not denied or withdrawn.
The court stated, "We agree that Salem Code § 106-520(D) precludes the City Council from considering, for a period of one year, a second application that is substantially the same as the first application when the first was either denied by the Council or withdrawn after Council consideration but before the Council decided whether to approve or deny it."
The judges involved in the ruling included Judges Chaney, Callins, and Bernhard. The court emphasized that the legislative record showed that neither HopeTree nor the City Council treated the first application as incomplete or withdrawn.
Impact
This ruling clarifies the interpretation of local zoning laws, particularly regarding the resubmission of zoning applications. It establishes that an applicant cannot withdraw an approved application merely by submitting a new, similar application. The decision reinforces the finality of zoning approvals and prevents confusion over the status of approved applications.
Hart's case highlights the challenges residents may face when contesting local government decisions regarding zoning. The court's ruling may deter similar challenges in the future, as it sets a precedent that could limit the ability of residents to contest approved zoning changes.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Hart plans to appeal the decision or if there are related cases pending. However, the ruling serves as a significant legal precedent for future zoning disputes in Virginia.