HEPTAD Sues Front Royal Town Council for $6-Million in Damages on Swan Estates Proffer Amendment Denial

According to documents in the Warren County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office, on Monday, September 25, legal counsel for HEPTAD LLC (Heptad) filed a civil action against the Front Royal Town Council for its August 28 rejection of Heptad’s Proffer Amendment proposal to facilitate the long-floundering Swan Estates residential development. That development on a total of 98.25 acres to the west of Leach Run Parkway is for a now-reduced number of homes on “approximately 86 acres” — 335 units, down from 450 with all multi-family units eliminated, was cited in the civil complaint. The Heptad/Swan Estates residential development project was broached in 2011, with initial proffers offered and placed in 2012, according to references in the civil complaint.

But focusing on the August 28, 2023, council rejection of Heptad’s proffer amendment proposal, the company is seeking damages of $6 million as a result of a divided town council’s 4-3 vote to deny the amended proffers. Mayor Lori Cockrell cast the decisive tie-breaking vote for the denial of “Skip” Rogers motion to approve the proffer amendments. Voting with the mayor for denial were Melissa DeDomenico-Payne, Amber Morris, and Josh Ingram. Voting for approval with Rogers was Vice-Mayor Wayne Sealock and Bruce Rappaport.

Graphic accompanying HEPTAD LLC proffer amendment submission showing parameters of Swan Estates parcel. Locations of WCHS to left, WMH at right-center, and WCMS upper right, are shown. Below, the Front Royal Town Council ponders what it has been shown regarding the Heptad Proffer Amendment proposal to update what was originally agreed to in 2012, prior to construction of Leach Run Parkway. Royal Examiner File Photos

The bottom line in the civil complaint filing on the first page states: “Heptad maintains that the Council’s denial was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unconstitutional and in violation of Virginia law.” Heptad’s counsel cites six counts justifying its damages claim against the town council as a whole entity. It is also noted that Heptad’s contract with Van Metre Communities LLC to purchase the property for development fell through as a direct result of the proffer amendment denial.

Count 1: In denying the Amended Proffers, Council refused to relieve Heptad of the burden of an unconstitutional condition in violation of Va. Code Ann. 15.2-2208.1;

Count 2: The Council’s denial of the Proffer Amendment was a violation of Va. Code. Ann. 15.2-2298, in violation of the Dillon Rule;

Count 3: The Council’s request that Heptad relinquish its property rights to credits as a condition of amending the 2012 Proffers violates Plaintiff’s vested rights;

Count 4: The denial of the Proffer Amendment is a violation of Va. Code Ann. 15.2-2303.4;

Count 5: Declaratory judgment that the monetary contribution remaining in the 2012 Proffers constitutes an unconstitutional condition. Of this count, it is added: “The failure or refusal to approve the 2023 Proffers has left Heptad subject to the 2012 Proffers, which impose an unreasonable and unconstitutional condition on the development of the Property that remains a burden on the Property, specifically an unconstitutional monetary contribution toward the cost of construction of Leach Run Parkway that must be removed.” A case of the BOS of Albemarle Co. v. Route 29, LLC is cited in support of this count.

Count 6: Violation of rights protected by the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 because of the monetary contribution remaining in the 2012 Proffers constitutes an unconstitutional condition.

Heptad also alleges inaccurate information or flawed interpretation of information being cited by council members during the final public hearing phase and council discussion leading up to the split vote of denial.

And we’ll let the lawyers take it from there. The Prince William County-based law firm of Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley & Walsh P.C. submitted the 28-page civil complaint on behalf of HEPTAD LLC. Attorneys John H. Foote and Matthew A. Westover appear to be the involved counsel, with Foote signing the civil complaint submission above his and Westover’s contact information.

As noted in the Royal Examiner’s story on the August 28 vote referencing the Town meeting video: “The Swan Farm proffer amendment public hearing begins at the 2:05:47 mark of the linked Town video; the vote is called at 2:59:15 mark, with the deadlock reaching the mayor at the 2:59:47 mark. (The mayor’s) vote is cast at 3:06:20, ending the discussion – for now.”

“For now,” indeed. If we recall correctly, prior to casting her tie-breaking vote, Mayor Cockrell commented that certain past proffer-related actions or inactions by Heptad left her with “heartburn” on the proposed proffer changes. Wonder how that heartburn is doing now.

Split Town Council Denies Swan Estates Proffer Amendments, Hears Overwhelming Citizen Support for Revitalized Youth Center