A judge has greenlighted a lawsuit filed by a group of residents that would nullify Charlottesville’s recent rezoning aimed at densifying the city and boosting affordable housing.
Judge Claude Worrell made his ruling Wednesday at the conclusion of a hearing in Charlottesville Circuit Court, rejecting a legal challenge to the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ complaint.
“We are feeling very good right now about the case,” plaintiff Michael Bevier told The Daily Progress following the hearing.
Bevier is one of nine plaintiffs — most of them homeowners in the city’s affluent Barracks-Rugby neighborhood — who sued Charlottesville last year alleging the city failed to properly account for impacts on traffic, utilities and neighborhood character when it voted in late 2023 to “upzone” most of the city.
The city has filed numerous defenses in hopes Worrell would toss the suit, including a plea in bar (a denial of every fact and circumstance necessary to prove wrongdoing) and a demurrer (an objection that a claim is irrelevant or invalid while granting the factual basis of the claim), the document argued Wednesday.
Already, Worrell has ruled out so many causes of action that the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in December.
In January, the plaintiffs attempted to get Worrell to recuse himself, alleging a variety of potential conflicts. Among those were his ownership of property within city limits, his wife’s public advocacy for upzoning and the fact that other judges in other jurisdictions have recused themselves from zoning lawsuits.
The city replied in one of its arguments that waiting until after receiving adversarial rulings suggested a level of opportunism among the plaintiffs that should not be rewarded with recusal. Worrell declined to recuse himself.
The city has touted its new zoning ordinance as a way to combat the high cost of housing in Virginia’s second-most expensive real estate market after the Washington suburbs. The new ordinance encourages infill development with higher allowable density. And the contracted lawyer arguing the case for the city Wednesday tried to make these points.
“The community ended up supporting a more inclusive vision,” said attorney Ryan Starks.
“That doesn’t matter,” replied Worrell, directing Starks to focus on the legal questions of whether the city met its burdens under state law.
Undeterred, Starks went on to discuss the public process and the hiring of consultants. Before the unanimous vote to pass the new zoning ordinance on Dec. 18, 2023, Starks recounted, the city spent several years considering the changes and inviting the public to hear what its experts were saying.
“Of course it’s important,” Starks continued. “All the city has to do is offer some evidence of reasonableness; that is the legal standard.”
The plaintiff’s lawyer, Michael Derdeyn, however, contended that the city violated a more powerful legal standard, Dillon’s Rule, the legal precedent that forces localities to follow state law in all actions.
“They can’t dodge responsibility by trying to argue the reasonableness standard,” said Derdeyn.
As he rejected both the city’s demurrer and its plea in bar, Worrell began reading from Board of Supervisors v. Carper, a 1959 Fairfax case that Worrell found instructive.
“The purpose of zoning is in general two-fold,” wrote the trial judge in that case, “to preserve the existing character of an area by excluding prejudicial uses, and to provide for the development of the several areas in a manner consistent with the uses for which they are suited.”
The language seemed reminiscent of some of the plaintiffs’ arguments, and Worrell said the midcentury ruling was a reminder that people have a right to question a zoning ordinance.
While moving the case forward, Worrell noted that a trial may not be imminent. Both sides, Worrell said at the close of the hearing, still have another way to win before trial: with a successful motion for summary judgement, a pretrial knock-out punch.
Source: www.dailyprogress.com