There could be more time in court for a group of Charlottesville landowners who filed a lawsuit in January seeking an overturning of new development rules adopted a month earlier.
“Plaintiffs have provided a sufficient question of fact for the Court to hear evidence regarding the promulgation of the new zoning ordinance,” said Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Claude Worrell in a three-page ruling issued on November 12. (read the ruling)
The suit was filed on January 16 against the City of Charlottesville, the Charlottesville Planning Commission, and Charlottesville City Council but Worrell ruled this week that only the governing body is an appropriate target of the suit.
The plaintiffs argued that the city did not follow the Commonwealth of Virginia’s rules for studying the impacts of higher residential density on public infrastructure including transportation, schools, water, sewer, and other services. Each of the parties is a property owner on land now zoned from the single-family R-1 in the old code to either Residential-B or Residential-C in the new version. (read the original pleading on cvillepedia)
“At a minimum, with respect to residential zoning districts, this increases the density — by right — to 3, 6 or 8 units per lot — with additional density permitted by right if there are affordable units included,” reads paragraph 54 of the original pleading.
In response, the City of Charlottesville filed three motions including a demurrer, a maneuver where the defendant seeks a ruling on whether the merits of a plaintiff’s case might result in a victory at trial.
Former City Attorney Jacob Stroman and attorneys with the firm Gentry Locke argued the plaintiffs’ suit should be dismissed because two of their four counts all make the claim that the Comprehensive Plan adopted in November 21 did not comply with specific sections of Virginia Code.
These are:
- §15.2-2222.1 – Coordination of state and local transportation planning
- §15.2-2223(B)(1) – Comprehensive plan to be prepared and adopted; scope and purpose
In his ruling this week, Judge Worrell sided with the City of Charlottesville.
“In 2021 Plaintiff’s had thirty days to sue for relief and did not sue for relief,” Worrell wrote in the three-page ruling issued on November 12. “In 2024 the Plaintiff’s have no right to relief for as to the 2021 plan.”
Worrell also referred to a previous lawsuit filed by an anonymous group within a month of that document’s approval by City Council in November 2021. Their identity has never been revealed.
“In Doe, this court held that Plaintiff would have a right of action when their rights are affected by a zoning ordinance,” Worrell wrote. He went on to quote his own ruling that the anonymous group could also challenge “the validity of the comp plan on which the ordinance is based.”
That leaves two counts remaining for Worrell to rule on.
Count 3 which argues the zoning ordinance is null and void because it violates §15.2-2284 which covers “matters to be considered in drawing and applying zoning ordinances and districts.”
Count 4 makes the claim that the new zoning ordinance is “arbitrary, capricious and bears no reasonable relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.”
“City Council did not reasonably investigate the basic considerations of modern urban planning when population density is drastically increased by right, such as impacts on stormwater management, sanitary sewer, water supply and traffic congestion,” reads paragraph 92 of the original pleading.
Count 4 also mentions §15.2-2283 which covers the Purpose of Zoning.
At a 90 minute hearing on June 27, 2024, Greg Haley of Gentry Locke argued that the city went through a long process to adopt the new Development Code through a process called Cville Plans Together which featured dozens of public meetings and hours of deliberations.
“This legislative record establishes that reasonable people could disagree on the adoption of the zoning,” Haley said, arguing that meant the action was not “arbitrary and capricious” as claimed by the plaintiffs.
Judge Worrell disagreed.
“The Court declines to adopt the City’s argument that the legislative record establishes that the City’s decision to oppose the [new zoning ordinance] was fairly debatable,” Worrell said. “Instead the court is of the opinion that there may be other evidence that the parties may wish to present prior to this court ruling on the ultimate issue.”
However, Worrell said he would be ready to make a ruling on the demurrer if both parties are satisfied. He concluded his order by asking counsel on both sides to contact his clerk to schedule the next hearing.
Since the suit was filed, City Attorney Jacob Stroman was placed on administrative leave for several months before being briefly reinstated. He resigned almost simultaneously and the city continues to use the law firm of Sands Anderson to receive legal advice.
Previous coverage:
- Circuit Court Judge reduces Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan lawsuit to one count, throws out three others, August 29, 2022
- Lawsuit filed seeking voidance of Charlottesville’s new zoning code, January 17, 2024
- Charlottesville served with lawsuit seeking voidance of the new zoning code, March 1, 2024
- Charlottesville has responded to lawsuit seeking overturning of new zoning code, March 27, 2024
- Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Worrell to take time to decide on court trial for zoning lawsuit, July 7, 2024
Before you go: The time to write and research of this article is covered by paid subscribers to Charlottesville Community Engagement. In fact, this particular installment is from the November 15, 2024 edition of the newsletter. To ensure this research can be sustained, please consider becoming a paid subscriber or contributing monthly through Patreon.
Discover more from Information Charlottesville
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
