CHARLOTTESVILLE 鈥 The city lost a major battle Monday in its fight to preserve a recent citywide rezoning after its two-person legal team forgot to make a timely filing 鈥 a mistake that led a judge to issue a default ruling against the city.
Charlottesville Circuit Judge Claude Worrell said he would enjoin the city from enforcing the new zoning ordinance that would have allowed greater density in construction across the city.
鈥淥h, geez,鈥 exclaimed City Councilor Lloyd Snook, a backer of the new zoning ordinance, when The Daily Progress informed him of the ruling. 鈥淭hey didn鈥檛 even ask for an injunction.鈥
The plaintiffs had long sought a ruling that the ordinance would be declared void ab initio, a Latin term which means 鈥渇rom its beginning.鈥
Ironically, over the course of recent months, Charlottesville had prevailed on several fronts, leaving only a few concerns regarding infrastructural capacity and whether the city had conferred with the Virginia Department of Transportation prior to enacting its sweeping zoning changes in December 2023.
People are also reading…
Snook
鈥淭his is a completely unvarnished victory for the plaintiffs,鈥 Jerry Cox told The Daily Progress.
Cox is a Charlottesville resident and managing director of the Forerunner Foundation, an Arlington-based nonprofit organization that is challenging what it considers radical rezoning in cities across Virginia, including Arlington and Alexandria. The Forerunner Foundation has been helping the nine Charlottesville plaintiffs wage their suit against the city.
A similar effort in 色多多 to allow increased density in an effort to make housing more affordable also has faced legal challenges.
The Charlottesville ruling caught many by surprise, including Realtor Roger Voisinet, who has already rezoned and, under the new ordinance, sold part of a parcel he owned on East Market Street.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 just beyond belief,鈥 Voisinet told The Daily Progress.
City officials, who worked on the new ordinance for four years, had expressed hope that allowing greater density in the city would spur developers to build more housing, and in effect lower housing costs.
But for the nine residents who filed suit in January 2024 and issued an amended complaint later that year in December, the new zoning was a threat to their peace and tranquility 鈥 as well to as the proper functioning of the city.
鈥淭here鈥檚 no plan to widen any road,鈥 plaintiff Roy Van Doorn told The Daily Progress. 鈥淭here鈥檚 simply no plan.鈥
Van Doorn said the city failed to predict the impact of growth and cost to maintain public services.
An anti-rezoning sign sits on Rugby Avenue in Charlottesville on Sept. 26, 2023.
鈥淩esidential growth is very expensive,鈥 said Van Doorn. 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 pay for itself.鈥
By contrast, city officials staked their reputations on urbanism, the idea that greater urban density would spur residents to accomplish more of their daily tasks on foot, bicycle or bus.
The proponents of the rezoning ordinance had a whipsaw week, as the Virginia Court of Appeals on June 24 remanded back to the trial court a closely watched Arlington case which bears a striking resemblance to the one in Charlottesville. The appellate court鈥檚 three-judge panel seemed swayed by the plight of developer Wilson Ventures LLC, which wanted a say in the case. Relying on Arlington鈥檚 new zoning, the firm had demolished an older structure and substantially completed some new apartments which were ready for their final inspection when an Arlington judge ruled that city鈥檚 rezoning invalid.
During much of Monday鈥檚 hearing in Charlottesville Circuit Court, the judge rested his chin on a hand and asked few questions of the lawyers who conceded that they missed the May 21 deadline to file their answer to the lawsuit鈥檚 amended complaint.
A look at some of the revised zoning that was planned for Charlottesville under the new ordinance.
鈥淚 just need to state up front,鈥 announced Ryan J. Starks, arguing for the city, 鈥渙utside counsel forgot.鈥
Starks and his co-counsel, D. Scott Foster, both from the Richmond office of Gentry Locke, left the courthouse without comment, declining an interview request from The Daily Progress.
鈥淭hey just skulked out of this courthouse,鈥 said Cox.
Cox
A lawyer, Cox said that basic ethics training for Virginia lawyers emphasizes meeting deadlines as second only to the proscription against mingling the lawyer鈥檚 money with that of the client. Cox suggested that Charlottesville taxpayers try to get their money back from Gentry Locke. He also said that he predicts that City Council will reenact a version of its new zoning ordinance.
鈥淭hey could start over again, and I suspect that they will,鈥 said Cox, 鈥渂ut maybe they鈥檒l actually try to come up with some kind of a compromise.鈥
Also a lawyer, Snook expressed shock that a missed deadline with no obvious harm to the interests of the plaintiffs would be the basis for a default judgement. Snook said he didn鈥檛 know what actions City Council might take.
鈥淭here are a whole lot of things about this ruling that I鈥檓 going to want to read and study,鈥 said Snook.
The default motion was successfully argued Monday by Ashley T. Hart, co-counsel on the case with Michael Derdeyn at the Charlottesville law firm of Flora Pettit. There is no timeline for entry of the judge鈥檚 written opinion.
