A lawsuit over Charlottesville’s zoning code is still active after an August 13 court date on a motion from the city that asked Court Judge Claude Worrell to reconsider a June 30 ruling that threw out development rules adopted by City Council in late 2023.
“At the conclusion of that hearing, the Court invited the City to make a written submission of its substantial defenses to Count 1 of the Amended Complaint,” reads the introduction submitted by attorneys with the firm Gentry Locke.
A group of property owners filed suit against the City Council in January 2024 claiming that the city had not followed Virginia code requiring coordination between a locality and the Virginia Department of Transportation when a Comprehensive Plan recommends additional density. City Council adopted a new plan in November 2021 that included a Future Land Use Map indicating their preference to allow more residential construction across all of Charlottesville.
After a series of hearings in 2024, the plaintiffs’ attorney filed an amended complaint in the case known as White v. Charlottesville. Count 1 is titled “The [new zoning ordinance] is void for failure to comply with Virginia Code §15.2-2222.1.”
“The [new zoning ordinance] will substantially affect transportation on state-controlled highways,” reads paragraph 75 of the amended complaint.
The new filing from the city is 33 pages long and argues that the city will be able to defend the claim in court should Worrell reverse his granting of default judgment and allow a trial to proceed.
“Plaintiffs have the burden of proof on Count I, and would need to establish that the City was required to submit the proposed December 18, 2023 zoning ordinance (and a traffic impact statement) to the Virginia Department of Transportation under §15.2-2222.1(B),” reads a section of page 3.
“This is a highly fact-intensive inquiry, and would likely necessitate expert witnesses on both sides,” the response continues. “This defense is the focus of the City’s written submission.”
The submission argues that the city is exempt from having to send an impact statement under Virginia’s regulations, citing 24VAC30-155-40 of the administrative code.
“No submission shall be required if the rezoning proposal results in lower maximum daily trip generation and no increase in maximum trip generation for AM Peak Hour of the adjacent street, PM Peak Hour of the adjacent street, and Weekend Peak Hour when compared to the hourly trip generation of land uses allowed by right under the current zoning, excepting governmental uses such as schools and libraries,” reads that section.
On page 7, the city’s attorneys allege that it was up to the city to determine if a traffic impact statement should be submitted, but submitted correspondence from VDOT that they claim indicates the agency didn’t feel one was needed.
“The City must determine whether its proposed rezoning falls under the requirements of Sec. 15.2-2221.B,” wrote Danny Martinez, assistant resident engineer for VDOT’s Charlottesville residency, in an email dated December 18, 2023 at 8:12 a.m. This is labeled exhibit B.
On page 8, the city’s attorneys allege that the only state-controlled highway is a small sliver of Interstate-64 because Charlottesville maintains its local roads.
The new filing does not mention that VDOT has recently considered Charlottesville to be deficient in its ability to move forward with funded transportation projects. VDOT has also recently taken over management of a project to build a new streetscape for Fontaine Avenue, a project for which the city was awarded funding in 2016 but has been unable to move forward without VDOT’s assistance.
Much of the rest of the filing takes issue with plaintiffs’ use of the Greenbrier neighborhood in the amended complaint as an example of why the city needed to submit a traffic impact statement.
“The City would also welcome the opportunity to present additional argument on this issue at the Court’s request,” reads the final sentence of the filing.
The plaintiffs have until August 20 to file their response. Judge Worrell is expected to issue a written opinion on Friday.
Resources for this story:
- The plaintiff’s amended complaint in White v. Charlottesville
- Defendant’s Written Submission of its Substantial Defenses
Before you go: This article was first published in the August 19, 2025 edition of Charlottesville Community Engagement and then posted here. The idea is to eventually move to one unified content management system and that time is going to come.
Discover more from Information Charlottesville
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
