Plaintiffs file amended complaint in case against Charlottesville’s new zoning code

Attorneys for a group of Charlottesville land owners seeking to overturn the city’s relatively new zoning code have filed an amended complaint in the still open case. The document adds more details to support the claim that Charlottesville did not sufficiently review the impact additional density would have on the city’s health, safety, and welfare.

The new pleading submitted on December 30 also reflects an order from Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Claude Worrell in November that threw out two of four counts in the original case. (read the amended complaint)

The second paragraph of the pleading’s introduction now concludes with an additional sentence that claims the city argued they did not have to conduct a traffic impact analysis based on a new code that would allow thousands of units by-right.

“The City’s position in this regard flies in the face of its explicit statutory obligations to submit its proposed rezoning, along with a traffic impact statement, to the Virginia Department of Transportation as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2222.1(B) and VDOT’s Traffic Impact Analysis regulations,” reads the new sentence.

The amended complaint now contains new information reflecting conditions since implementation of the Development Code last February. For instance, paragraph 26 formerly had a reference to the asking price of 1316 Chesapeake Street. Now it reflects one of the first examples of how the new rules allow additional buildings in what had been single-family residential zones, causing harm to the plaintiffs.

“The single-family property located at 303 Alderman Road was recently purchased for $835,000 and Evergreen Home Builders is proposing to build 6 “Luxury Brownstones” on this property which was rezoned under the [new zoning ordinance] to [Residential-B]. “The tax assessment for this property was $690,200 which indicates the fair market value of the property increased by almost $150,000 or 21.7 percent based solely on the changes sought to be implemented by the [new zoning ordinance].”

The amended complaint also has a slightly amended narrative detailing the history of the Cville Plans Together initiative. A paragraph stating the role of the Planning Commission has been deleted, referencing Worrell’s order dismissing the appointed body from the lawsuit.

In his November ruling, Judge Worrell dismissed an argument that the zoning is unlawful because the Comprehensive Plan on which it is based was also invalid. The amended complaint has removed several references to that document.

For instance, a section that had been titled “The Comprehensive Plan is Void for Failure to Comply with the Statutory Requirements for Transportation Planning” is now titled “City Council Failed to Comply with the Statutory Requirements for Transportation Planning in Connection with the 2021 Comp Plan and the [new zoning ordinance.]

This section now includes a new paragraph 40 that describes how the potential density of the Greenbrier neighborhood could more than quadruple under the new rules.

“There are currently 866 units in that neighborhood with 644 zoned Residential-A, 216 zoned Residential-B, and six zoned Residential-C,” reads the paragraph. “At base density, i.e. without any bonus density for existing structure preservation or for affordable units, a total of 3,276 units will be permitted.”

The paragraph states the maximum buildout with all bonuses would be 4,364 units.

What had been titled “Statutory Requirements Regarding Transportation” is now titled “The City Failed to Submit the 2021 Comp Plan to VDOT for Review” and the paragraphs have been slightly rewritten but largely make the same arguments as the original complaint.

There’s also a new subsection titled “The City Failed to Submit the [New Zoning Ordinance] to VDOT for Review” with new language referencing Virginia Code § 15.2-2222.1(B). The complaint now builds on the Greenbrier example and argues that the number of vehicle trips to be generated by the new zoning would require a traffic impact statement under VDOT regulations.

The rest of the amended complaint summarizes other claims of deficiency with state code.

“City Council failed to reasonably consider the community’s current and future requirements based on appropriate studies regarding transportation, schools, recreational facilities, and public service requirements,” reads paragraph 80.

“As a result, City Council failed to abide by its enabling authority in enacting the [new zoning ordinance] and therefore acted outside the scope of its power, rendering the [new zoning ordinance] ab initio,” reads paragraph 82 citing the Virginia Supreme Court case of Town of Jonesville v. Powell Valley Village Limited Partnership.

The city has acknowledged they received the complaint and have 21 days from receipt to respond.

You can review the original pleading here. Both documents are uploaded to cvillepedia.

Before you go: This article was originally sent out as part of the Charlottesville Community Engagement newsletter in the January 8, 2025 edition. Both are functions of Town Crier Productions. You can support the work by purchasing a paid subscription or contributing monthly through Patreon. You can also send in a check or send an email, but drop me a line first.