Developer sues New Kent, county denies allegations

A developer, whose rezoning application aimed at building a housing subdivision was rejected in December by New Kent’s Board of Supervisors, has filed a lawsuit against the county, asking for the decision to be overturned by a circuit court judge.

Richmond-based Godsey Properties filed suit on Jan. 13, seeking reversal of supervisors’ decision and approval of its rezoning application. There is no request for monetary damages. In a response filed Feb. 9, the county denies Godsey’s allegations and basically claims the plaintiff has no case.

Supervisors voted 5-0 on Dec. 14 to deny Godsey’s application. The company sought R-1 Single Family Residential zoning for 131 acres, currently zoned A-1 Agriculture, located off Tunstall Road near Quinton. There the developer proposed to build “Dunham,” a 113-lot subdivision.

During a series of public hearings leading up to supervisors’ vote, dozens of opponents, mostly residents from the surrounding Kenwood Farms, Essex Hills, and Deer Lake subdivisions, turned out to complain about potential impact on county roads and schools and bad timing for the proposal. No one spoke in favor.

Randy Cook, Godsey’s attorney, argued that Dunham would fit in with surrounding subdivisions and pointed to the county’s land use plan that calls for R-1 zoning. Supervisors, however, sided with constituents.

In its lawsuit, Godsey alleges “the Board of Supervisors failed to provide any reasons for its decision to deny… other than to imply that the county doesn’t want or need any more subdivisions and that the ‘time is not right.’”

Godsey claims its rezoning application is reasonable and consistent with the county’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The suit alleges the current A-1 zoning on the 131 acres is “unreasonable and unfair” due to the existing subdivisions that surround the property.

The suit labels supervisors’ denial as “arbitrary, capricious, discriminating, unreasonable, and without reasonable relation to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the county’s citizens.” The board’s action creates an unconstitutional “de facto moratorium” contrary to state law and violates Godsey’s equal protection rights, the suit alleges.

In its Feb. 9 response filed by interim county attorney Michele M. Gowdy, the county denies Godsey’s allegations. When contacted Monday, Gowdy said the county is awaiting Godsey’s reply.

“There’s no time limit for them to respond, but the burden is on them next if they want to file for discovery or drop the suit,” Gowdy said, adding it’s too early in the legal process to consider an out-of-court settlement.

“I’ve spoken with Randy and he said they’ll get back to us after the General Assembly session,” she said.

Gowdy said discovery and interrogatories would be the next step if the lawsuit goes forward. No trial date has been set.