Arlington’s Missing Middle zoning ordinance is back on the books, at least for the time being, following a ruling in the Virginia Court of Appeals.
In the latest development in the dramatic legal battle over the county’s Expanded Housing Options (EHO), three appeals court judges issued a ruling yesterday (Tuesday) that reverses a circuit court decision declaring the zoning change void.
The move sends the case back to the lower court for further review, according to court documents reviewed by ARLnow.
The disposition doesn’t touch on the legal arguments at the heart of the lawsuit, which seeks to overturn an ordinance allowing for the development of multi-unit buildings in previously single-family neighborhoods.
Instead, it finds that developers who had previously received EHO permits are “indispensable parties” that need the opportunity to be included in court proceedings.
“Thus, we reverse the circuit court’s judgment declaring the Amendment void and prohibiting the Board from acting under the Amendment and remand the cases to the court so necessary parties may be added if the appellees are so inclined,” the ruling says.
The ruling relates to an appeal from Wilsons Ventures, which had sought to develop two properties on 25th Street and Quincy Street in Arlington.
“It had ‘nearly completed’ the units on 25th Street, and they were ready for final inspection,” the filing says. “The property on Quincy Street had been subdivided, the existing structure on the property had been demolished, and Wilsons Ventures was developing the property under the EHO permit.”
Wilsons Ventures moved for leave to intervene back in October. However, Circuit Court Judge David Schell found that the property owner’s claims weren’t germane to the case, that it wasn’t a necessary party and that it had unnecessarily delayed its attempt to appeal.
The Court of Appeals disagreed.
“We conclude that the notice of appeal is timely,” the disposition says. “But we also conclude that appellees failed to join indispensable parties to the litigation below and so must reverse the judgments and remand for further proceedings.”
The Missing Middle lawsuit previously went to trial last July. Schell ruled against defendants on four counts in September, finding that the county failed to adequately consider localized impacts, failed to follow proper procedure and violated state tree canopy requirements when adopting the amendments.
He ruled that the ordinance was void, preventing the county from issuing any further EHO permits.
Virginians Organized for Interfaith Community Engagement (VOICE) celebrated the latest ruling in a press release, calling it “a major victory for housing equity and inclusion in Arlington County.”
“A small group of wealthy homeowners spent their time and resources trying to lock the doors behind them—to preserve a status quo that has kept too many people out for too long,” said the Rev. Ashley Goff on behalf of the group. “This ruling says loud and clear: Arlington’s future isn’t reserved for the few.”
Arlington County, meanwhile, released the following statement about the ruling late Wednesday morning.
On Tuesday, June 24, 2025, the Virginia Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the previous Expanded Housing Options trial ruling, effectively reinstating Arlington County’s EHO ordinance as adopted by the County Board on March 22, 2023.
The County will consider its next steps and how to best resume the EHO permitting process, including how to inform previous applicants who were either in the process or had their approved permits voided last fall. The County will share additional information as decisions are made.
Dan Creedon — a representative for the anti-Missing Middle group Neighbors for Neighborhoods, which fundraised for the lawsuit — told ARLnow that plaintiffs are currently considering a motion to stay the appeals court’s order.
Appellees have 14 days to appeal or 30 days to petition the Virginia Supreme Court to overturn the order.
Creedon stressed that the ruling doesn’t address the substance of Schell’s findings against the county.
“The order only addresses whether or not Wilsons Ventures, which sought to intervene in the case after the trial was over and the judge ruled in favor of the homeowners, was a necessary party to that litigation,” he said.
