A Virginia wildlife centre wants to help injured bald eagles fly again, but a neighbouring restaurant owner’s opposition to its proposed aviary has triggered an eight-year legal battle that has cost both sides around $700,000 | World News

A wildlife rehabilitation centre in Virginia wants to build a larger aviary where injured bald eagles can regain their strength and practise flying before returning to the wild. But the proposed facility has become the centre of a bitter dispute with a neighbouring restaurant owner, turning disagreements over traffic, noise and access to a shared private road into a prolonged legal battle. The conflict involving the Southwest Virginia Wildlife Center of Roanoke and restaurant owner Stan Seymour has stretched across several years, with legal fees for both sides reportedly reaching around $700,000, according to The Washington Post. While the centre says the enclosure is necessary for rehabilitating large birds of prey, Seymour has challenged the expansion over its potential impact on the surrounding neighbourhood.

Why the Virginia wildlife centre wants a larger aviary

The Southwest Virginia Wildlife Center of Roanoke is a nonprofit rehabilitation facility that treats thousands of injured and sick wild animals each year. It cares for native wildlife, including bald eagles and other birds of prey, with the aim of returning them to their natural habitats.The centre was established by Sabrina and Lucky Garvin, who began rehabilitating animals at home before expanding their operation. Chester Leonard, the centre’s executive director, has helped lead its work as it has grown into a wildlife hospital serving western Virginia.The proposed raptor building would provide a larger flight enclosure for recovering birds. After an injury, a bird of prey may need more than medical treatment to survive in the wild again. It must rebuild its strength, stamina and flying ability before it can be safely released.The centre says its existing 50-foot flight pen is not long enough to provide the conditioning large eagles need, and that a flight enclosure of at least 100 feet would be more suitable.

How a shared road fuelled the dispute

The legal conflict escalated in 2018, when the centre sought permission to build the aviary. Access to its property runs along Coleman Road, a narrow, partly unpaved private road that crosses neighbouring properties. The road is governed by an easement dating back to the 1930s, making access rights a central issue in the dispute.Seymour, who owns 14 Bojangles fried-chicken restaurants in Virginia, has argued that the centre’s expansion would bring additional traffic and noise to the area where he and his wife, Jane, live. He has also questioned whether the centre should have been permitted to operate at that location.Roanoke County approved a special-use permit for the proposed raptor building in 2018. Seymour and other neighbours challenged the decision, arguing that the centre’s operations affected their properties and access to the shared road.The disagreement subsequently widened into a series of legal disputes involving zoning decisions, road access and allegations of misconduct. The parties have offered sharply different accounts of the conflict, with the centre maintaining that the litigation has hindered its rehabilitation work and Seymour arguing that his objections concern the impact of the expansion on the neighbourhood.

What the courts have decided

In June 2022, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled on a challenge brought by Seymour and other neighbours against the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. The court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of their case on standing grounds, allowing them to pursue their challenge.The decision did not establish that the wildlife centre was operating unlawfully or confirm that every allegation made by the neighbours was true. It addressed whether they had sufficiently alleged harm to challenge the county’s decision.The wider conflict has included allegations of road obstruction, harassment, defamation and interference with the centre’s operations. The centre has accused neighbours of actions intended to disrupt its work, while Seymour has denied allegations made against him. These claims form part of the competing accounts surrounding the dispute and should not be treated as proven findings.In a report published on May 23, 2026, The Washington Post said two major cases remained unresolved at that time, leaving the future of the proposed expansion uncertain.

The financial cost of the legal battle

The dispute has also become expensive for both sides. According to The Washington Post, Seymour had spent approximately $450,000 on legal fees, while the wildlife centre had spent around $230,000. Together, the costs amounted to roughly $680,000, or about $700,000.The financial burden is particularly significant for the centre, which operates as a nonprofit dependent on donations and community support. In June 2022, it said its legal expenses had already exceeded $140,000 and warned that further litigation would add to the pressure on its finances.

An injured eagle highlights the need for flight space

The consequences for rehabilitation became apparent in September 2025, when the centre received a bald eagle that had been injured in a territorial fight with younger eagles. The bird was exhausted and also showed signs of lead poisoning.According to the centre, the eagle made progress in its 50-foot flight pen but needed a longer enclosure to regain the strength and endurance required for release. Unable to provide the final stage of flight conditioning at its own facility, the centre transferred the bird to the Wildlife Center of Virginia for further treatment and rehabilitation.The eagle underwent treatment for lead poisoning and additional flight exercises. After being cleared for release, it was returned to the wild at Smith Mountain Lake Community Park on October 14, 2025.