The Charlottesville community will have to wait a bit longer for clarity on the city’s zoning code, as a lawsuit that threw development in the city into chaos earlier this summer continues.
During the latest hearing in Charlottesville Circuit Court on Aug. 13, Judge Claude Worrell did not issue an opinion and instead gave the parties in the lawsuit additional time to continue their arguments.
The recent confusion over the city’s zoning laws started after a June 30 hearing when Worrell ordered the City of Charlottesville to toss out its zoning ordinance and revert back to its old rules. His decision was a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, a small group of Charlottesville residents who sued the city alleging that the ordinance is invalid.
The new ordinance, which was compiled over several years with community input, was adopted by City Council in December 2023 and took effect in February 2024. Broadly, it allowed for more residential density throughout the city, something known as “upzoning.” Officials and some community members hoped that the new ordinance would open up more affordable housing opportunities for people of various economic statuses.
Worrell’s June 30 decision came not after a trial, but after the city’s outside counsel, Gentry Locke, missed a key filing deadline.
The decision left developers wondering what would happen to projects they’ve put time and money into as the city tried to figure out next steps. In mid-July, the city resumed operating under the 2024 development code while keeping zoning applications on hold. Some affordable housing projects are in limbo as all of this is worked out.
Previously, City Spokesperson Afton Schneider said that the city would try to reach a settlement with the plaintiffs. If it was unsuccessful, and if the court rules in plaintiffs’ favor, the city plans to file an appeal. Schneider said that the city is also prepared to take steps to re-adopt the ordinance if necessary. City Council took the first step toward that on Monday, July 21.
Worrell, the plaintiffs’s attorneys from Flora Petit, and the city’s attorneys from Gentry Locke were back in court Wednesday, Aug. 13 so that Worrell could hear the city’s motion to reconsider — and the plaintiffs’ motion opposing it.
The city’s motion argues that in his decision, Worrell did not properly consider that the city, who is the defendant in the case, was acting in “good faith.” (Charlottesville Community Engagement uploaded a copy of the motion; read it here.)
Normally a default judgment is issued when one of the litigants fails to show up, Gentry Locke attorney Michael Finney argued in the motion, and in the courtroom on Wednesday. But that’s not what happened here, Finney said. Instead, the city has been a very active participant, preparing for the trial in the case, which had been scheduled for 2026. Finney said that Gentry Locke takes responsibility for the mistake, which he called “humiliating,” and that the city — and its residents — should not be punished for it.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs asked the court to deny the city’s motion to reconsider for a few reasons, including that “motions to reconsider are disfavored and apply only in narrow circumstances,” that “the court properly applied the law and there is no basis for reconsideration,” and that “the city merely seeks to reargue a question that has already been decided.” (Charlottesville Community Engagement has a copy of the motion, filed on Aug. 6, here.)
After hearing arguments from Finney and Flora Petit attorney Ashley Hart on Wednesday, Worrell did not issue an opinion.
Worrell echoed something he’d said in June, when he issued the default judgment and lamented that the case wouldn’t ultimately go to trial.
“I thought it might be interesting to have a conversation about zoning, and what it means,” he told the 20 or so people who’d gathered in the courtroom for the hearing, including a few of the plaintiffs, Charlottesville Planning Commissioner Rory Stolzenberg, and a few journalists.
Instead, Worrell asked the plaintiffs to explain further to the court, in writing, about the suit’s key legal argument: that the City violated state law by sending just the transportation chapter of its comprehensive plan — and not the entire plan — to the Virginia Department of Transportation. Therefore, the suit alleges, the comprehensive plan adopted by the City Council in November 2021 is void. And if the comprehensive plan is void, so is the zoning ordinance it is based on, the suit argues.
Worrell gave the defense attorneys representing the city until Monday, Aug. 18 to reply. The plaintiffs would then have until Wednesday, Aug. 20 to file a response before Worrell releases an opinion on Friday, August 22.
The City of Charlottesville does not comment on ongoing litigation, city spokesperson Afton Schneider told Charlottesville Tomorrow in an email Wednesday afternoon.
Attorneys from Flora Petit did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
