## Facts

- Dr. Russell E. Randall, Jr. and J. W. Keith, Jr. owned a 3.24‑acre tract in the City of Richmond fronting Forest Hill Avenue.
- After the area was annexed in 1970, the tract was zoned R‑2 (single‑family residential).
- The City later adopted a Master Plan describing a “transitional strip” along Forest Hill Avenue and contemplating a residential‑office district for that corridor.
- Randall and Keith proposed a three‑story development for medical and general office use (an office complex) on the tract.
- To allow the project, they sought (1) rezoning to a residential‑office classification and (2) a special‑use permit, both of which required City Council action under the City’s charter.
- City planning materials and staff analysis supported the proposal as consistent with the City’s planning approach for the corridor and as a reasonable transition between higher‑intensity uses and nearby residences, though concerns such as traffic were noted.
- At public hearings, nearby residents opposed the project, raising concerns about traffic and neighborhood impact.
- The Planning Commission ultimately voted to disapprove the ordinance implementing the proposal, and City Council rejected the rezoning and refused the special‑use permit.
- Randall and Keith filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the R‑2 classification as invalid as applied and alleging the permit denial was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious; they also sought an order requiring the City to grant relief.
- The chancellor held the R‑2 zoning unreasonable, confiscatory, and unconstitutional as applied to the tract and found the permit denial improper; the decree directed the City to either adopt an ordinance granting the special‑use permit or rezone the property to allow the proposed construction.
- The City appealed; the landowners moved to dismiss the appeal based on alleged defects in the appellate record.

## Issues

1. Whether the City’s appeal should be dismissed because the appellate record lacked a certified transcript or certified statement of facts.
2. Whether, on this record, maintaining R‑2 zoning and denying the requested special‑use permit were “fairly debatable” legislative judgments or instead unreasonable, arbitrary, and unconstitutional as applied to the landowners’ property.
3. Whether the trial court could grant affirmative relief requiring the City to rezone or issue a special‑use permit after finding the existing classification invalid as applied and the denial arbitrary.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia denied the motion to dismiss the appeal, holding the documentary record (including pleadings, admissions, exhibits, the chancellor’s letter opinion, and the final decree) was sufficient for review.
- The Court affirmed the chancellor on the merits, agreeing that the R‑2 classification was unreasonable and invalid as applied to this tract.
- The Court also affirmed the finding that City Council’s refusal to grant the special‑use permit was arbitrary because the City’s justification did not make the matter “fairly debatable” on the record presented.
- The Court affirmed the decree requiring the City to provide relief by either rezoning the property to allow the proposed office use or adopting an ordinance granting the requested special‑use permit.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning and special‑use decisions by a city council are legislative in character and carry a presumption of validity.
- A landowner may obtain relief by proving that, as applied to the particular property, the zoning restriction is unreasonable, arbitrary, or confiscatory and lacks a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
- If the evidence makes the reasonableness of the legislative decision “fairly debatable,” courts do not substitute their judgment for the locality’s; if it is not fairly debatable, the decision cannot stand.
- Appellate review in an equity zoning case may proceed on a sufficient documentary record even without a certified transcript or certified statement of facts.
- When a court finds a zoning classification invalid as applied and the denial of requested relief arbitrary on the record, the court may issue declaratory and injunctive relief that requires the locality to take action that permits the reasonable use proven in the case (such as rezoning or special‑use authorization).

## Conclusion

City of Richmond v. Randall affirmed a chancellor’s ruling that Richmond’s R‑2 residential zoning was unconstitutional as applied to a 3.24‑acre tract and that City Council’s denial of a special‑use permit for a medical/general office project was arbitrary because the City could not show the decision was fairly debatable; the Supreme Court also upheld a decree requiring the City to grant effective relief by rezoning or issuing the permit.


City of Richmond v. Randall, 211 S.E.2d 56 (1975)