Charlottesville responds to new anti-zoning complaint; Plaintiffs call for Judge Worrell to recuse himself

It has now been a year since the City of Charlottesville and City Council were sued in a bid to reverse the city’s Development Code. That’s the name of the new zoning code Council adopted in December 2023 that allows for more residential development within city limits. There’s been new action this month including a motion from the plaintiffs for Circuit Court Judge Claude Worrell to recuse himself from the case.

Let’s start at the beginning.

The group of Charlottesville property allege they have been harmed because the city did not adequately study the effects that additional population would have on city infrastructure. The city responded that the plaintiffs wanted to deny housing to others and argued that all rules were followed.

An hour and a half long hearing was held last June in Charlottesville Circuit Court.

In November, Judge Claude Worrell ruled the plaintiffs in White v. Charlottesville have the right to bring the case that two of four counts could proceed. Attorney Mike Derdeyn filed an amended complaint in late December.

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.

Now attorneys with the firm Gentry Locke have filed a response that argues plaintiffs have introduced new evidence too late in the process.

“Prior to their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs did not challenge the [new zoning ordinance] on this basis,” reads the January 21, 2025 filing on behalf of the city. “Any such action must be brought within thirty days of the adoption of the challenged zoning ordinance. Plaintiff’s VDOT Claim was brought more than one year after the adoption of the [new zoning ordinance]. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s VDOT Claim is untimely and Count I should be dismissed.”

This “plea in bar” does not address the underlying legal challenge. (read the Plea in Bar and Motion Crying Oyer)

The next day on January 22, 2025, Derdeyn filed a motion seeking Worrell to voluntarily recuse himself from the case. (read the motion for recusal)

“Judge Worrell should recuse himself from these proceedings pursuant to Canon 1(D)(1) of the Virginia Canon of Judicial Ethics, which provides that ‘[a] judge must recuse himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’” reads the motion.

Judge Worrell is a homeowner in Charlottesville and the motion for recusal points out that four Arlington Circuit Court judges recused themselves from a case against that county’s Enhanced Housing Option program. Retired Fairfax Circuit Court Judge David Schell was brought on to hear the case and ruled in favor of plaintiffs who sought dismissal.

• Judge strikes down Arlington’s Expanded Housing Option ordinance, October 1, 2024
• Written opinion issued in legal ruling that halted Arlington’s missing middle zoning, October 31, 2024

The motion to recuse also refers to conflicting rulings made by Worrell such as an

ruling in August 2022 against a similar suit seeing voidance of the Comprehensive Plan upon which the Development Code is based. The plaintiff’s final reason seeking recusal relates to Judge Worrell’s spouse.

“Judge Worrell’s wife sits on the City of Charlottesville’s Human Rights Commission pursuant to an appointment by the City Council and has been a public supporter of the new zoning ordinance that is being challenged in this case,” the motion reads.

Attorneys with Gentry Locke responded to the motion the next day and called the motion a case of “judge-shopping.” (read the city’s response)

“On January 14, 2025, Judge Worrell upheld the City Council’s decision to grant a special use permit, applying the ‘fairly debatable’ standard that is also at issue in this case,” reads the city’s response. “Plaintiffs are merely attempting 1o mitigate their risk of facing the same fate.”

The city’s response argue that the plaintiffs have established no legal reason why Judge Worrell should recuse himself.

“Plaintiffs have presented no authority that merely residing in the locality in which the challenged ordinance is in effect is grounds for recusal,” reads a section of paragraph 6.

“A judge’s spouse’s appointment to an unrelated commission or her support of a zoning amendment does not warrant recusal,” reads another section of paragraph 6. “Plaintiffs do not.assert (nor could they correctly assert) that Judge Worrell’s wife is a party to or is likely to be a witness in this matter or that Judge Worrell could be influenced by her position or opinion.”

A hearing on the recusal is scheduled for February 6 according to Derdeyn. A hearing on the plea in bar is scheduled for March 26.

Before you go: This article was originally sent out as part of the Charlottesville Community Engagement newsletter in the January 27, 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.