April 16, 2025: Judge Worrell rules lawsuit against Charlottesville’s zoning code can proceed to next step
Plus: A review of pending and approved "major development plans" in Charlottesville
The geographical line that separates the United States and Canada is 5,525 miles long, or 8,891 kilometers. For many years the linear boundary has been the longest demilitarized border in the world. An important milestone along the way toward that longstanding peace took place on April 16, 1818. That’s when the United States Senate ratified the Rush-Bagot Treaty which put limitations on the number of naval ships that each could have on the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain.
One day perhaps Charlottesville Community Engagement will go into depth on North American history, but the audience demands more stories about local and regional government. I’m Sean Tubbs and I’m here to do what I can.
In today’s installment:
It was another day in court today for opponents seeking to overturn Charlottesville’s relatively new zoning code
Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Claude Worrell ruled that a trial can go forward to hear evidence about whether the city complied with state regulations on studying impacts of additional density on transportation infrastructure
A quick look at some of the more prominent developments moving forward under the new code
First shout-out: Camp Albemarle
Today’s first subscriber-supported public service announcement goes out to Camp Albemarle, which has for over sixty years been a “wholesome rural, rustic and restful site for youth activities, church groups, civic events and occasional private programs.”
Located on 14 acres on the banks of the Moorman’s River near Free Union, Camp Albemarle continues as a legacy of being a Civilian Conservation Corps project that sought to promote the importance of rural activities. Are you looking to escape and reconnect with nature? Consider holding an event where the natural beauty of the grounds will provide a venue to suit your needs. Visit their website to view the gallery and learn more!
Plaintiffs seeking voidance of Charlottesville zoning can move forward
A lawsuit filed by a group of Charlottesville property owners can proceed to the next step where plaintiffs can present evidence to support claims that city officials did not follow Virginia’s regulations to study the impact increased density would have on transportation infrastructure.
Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Claude Worrell’s latest ruling in White v. Charlottesville came at the end of a thirty-minute hearing on April 16 where several matters were pending.
Background
The suit was originally filed in January 2024 a month after the City Council approved a new zoning ordinance known as the Development Code. The plaintiffs are G. Edward White, Susan D. White, Roy Van Doorn, Kristi Van Doorn, Jenny Clay, Michael Bevier, Lilian Bevier and two trustees of the Thomas J. Hill Trust. They claim they will suffer harm as a result of additional density allowed by-right under the new code.
At a 90 minute hearing on June 27, 2024, Judge Worrell asked both sides to submit a closing argument in writing to persuade him whether the matter should proceed to a trial. In November, Worrell issued a three-page written ruling that concluded plaintiffs had legal standing to bring the case forward.
In January, counsel for the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that refined their argument that the city failed to comply with specific sections of Virginia code such as §15.2-2222.1. That requires a locality to submit a Comprehensive Plan to the Virginia Department of Transportation “if the plan or amendment will substantially affect transportation on state-controlled highways.”
Shortly afterward, the city’s legal counsel filed their own amendments to a motion called a “plea in bar” as well as one known as “demurrer.” The latter asked Judge Worrell to dismiss the complaint.
Today’s action
At today’s hearing, Ryan Starks of the firm Gentry Locke went first and argued that the plaintiffs’ case is based on an argument that the city did not do enough to study traffic impacts. He reminded the court that the Development Code came at the end of a long study period that began in 2019. The new zoning code is the third and final result of the Cville Plans Together initiative.
“There is no universe in which plaintiffs can say the city did not consider [impacts],” said Ryan Starks of the firm Gentry Locke. The city is still without an official attorney following the departure of Jacob Stroman last year.
Judge Worrell interrupted Starks to ask why that matters when the plaintiffs are citing specific sections of Virginia code. Starks said the standard is whether the city had a sufficient public process.
“All the City had to do is proffer some evidence of reasonableness,” Starks said. “They’ve done that.”
Starks said the plaintiff’s amended complaint is an example of additional requirements being added. He also added they had no right to enforce regulations that are the responsibility of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Starks also argued that Charlottesville maintains its own roadways and that the only “state-controlled highway” is a small sliver of Interstate 64.
In both versions of their complaint, plaintiffs pointed out the hypothetical maximums that could occur under the new Development Code and used the Greenbrier neighborhood as an example.
“The number of additional housing units permitted by the [New Zoning Ordinance] at base density is almost three times the number of existing number of units,” reads paragraph 40 of the amended complaint.
Starks also cited an analysis put together by consultants in August 2022 that showed that the rate of change would not be rapid as the Development Code went into effect.
“Charlottesville will not become Manhattan overnight,” Starks said. “That’s just not the case.”
Starks said the plaintiffs are seeking to draw the case out and he asked Judge Worrell to dismiss the case.
When it was his turn to respond, attorney Mike Derdeyn said he felt the city was misinterpreting the plaintiffs’ argument. He argued that under Virginia law, localities must perform what the state government says they must do.
“What we are seeking to do is enforce the Dillon Rule which in this case means that [the New Zoning Ordinance] is void for not complying,” Derdeyn said.
Derdeyn cited a 2010 Virginia Supreme Court case known as Schefer v. City Council of Falls Church which related to a zoning change in that locality related to the calculation of building heights. The plaintiff was a property owner who owned 12 lots and argued that the new rule violated a uniformity principle in state code (see §15.2-2282) as well as equal protection rules.
Derdeyn also argued that the city did not do any traffic impact analysis to determine what the impact additional density would have on city roads. He said that even if Judge Worrell took into account Starks’ point about state-controlled highways, the Greenbrier neighborhood is close enough to Rio Road East in Albemarle County which is under VDOT’s administration.
There are similar cases to White v. Charlottesville across Virginia including Arlington County and the City of Alexandria. He cited another Virginia Supreme Court case from 1959 called Board of Supervisors v. Carper. This case was decided at a trial.
In his rebuttal, Starks argued again that the City Council made a reasonable effort to have a thorough public process that led to the new Development Code. He said if plaintiffs seek to change the rules, the new rules can be revisited over time. Starks said the cases in Alexandria and Arlington County are at the Circuit Court level and thus have no binding precedent.
Before announcing his decision from the bench, Judge Worrell noted the Carper case was from a different era, but said it did conclude that people have a right to challenge changes made to a locality’s zoning.
That may now happen after Judge Worrell overruled the city’s request for a demurrer asked both sides to consult their schedules for a further hearing. The next step is a motion for summary judgment where Judge Worrell will be asked to rule on the facts.
“Where we are is where we are,” Judge Worrell said.
Stay tuned.
Previous stories:
Circuit Court Judge reduces Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan lawsuit to one count, throws out three others, August 29, 2022
Lawsuit filed seeking voidance of Charlottesville’s new zoning code, January 17, 2024
Charlottesville served with lawsuit seeking voidance of the new zoning code, March 1, 2024
Charlottesville has responded to lawsuit seeking overturning of new zoning code, March 27, 2024
Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Worrell to take time to decide on court trial for zoning lawsuit, July 7, 2024
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
Judge Worrell is ready to rule in lawsuit against Charlottesville’s new Development Code, but allows time for more evidence to be filed, November 16, 2024
Arlington to appeal judicial ruling invalidating middle missing zoning, November 22, 2025
Plaintiffs file amended complaint in case against Charlottesville’s new zoning code, January 15, 2025
Charlottesville responds to new anti-zoning complaint; Plaintiffs call for Judge Worrell to recuse himself, January 30, 2025
Charlottesville responds to new anti-zoning complaint; Plaintiffs call for Judge Worrell to recuse himself, January 30, 2025
Judge Worrell will not step away from lawsuit against Charlottesville’s new zoning, February 8, 2025
Second-shout out: Alliance Française de Charlottesville
The Alliance Française de Charlottesville promotes the French language and francophone culture through educational and cultural programs. Visit the Alliance Française website to learn more about group classes, private lessons, cultural events, and social activities for both kids and adults.
A status update on Charlottesville’s Development Code
Charlottesville’s Development Code went into effect on February 19, 2024 two months after the City Council unanimously adopted the new zoning code. Since that time, I’ve spent a lot of time reviewing property transactions and doing what I can to write stories about how the new rules are being implemented.
What follows comes from a look at the city’s development review portal.
So far no one has filed for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, though City Council has technically made one with the recent adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. You can see that plan here.
So far there have not been any amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance as visible in the portal.
There has been one rezoning approved by City Council. This was to change the affordable housing proffers for a project with the name 240 Stribling that had been approved under the old rules. Southern Development will be able to build some of the affordable units designated at 240 Stribling at another project called Flint Hill.
There are many different types of land use applications and under the new rules a property owner has to file for a “Development Plan Review - Major” with the city’s Department of Neighborhood Development Services. So far 21 are visible in the permit portal but some have been voided.
One of the first major development plans filed was 303 Alderman Road to replace a single-family home with six townhouse units. Evergreen Home Builders paid $835,000 for 303 Alderman on June 17, 2024 and Shimp Engineering filed the first set of plans exactly a month later. The application has been denied by staff three times with the most recent on March 13. That document is not available in the portal
Another early project submitted is a 24-unit development at 2030 Barracks Road. Greenshire Holdings purchased the undeveloped land for $581,500 on June 28 and subsequently filed a major development plan with NDS.
The by-right proposal would be to subdivide the property into two lots and to build 12 units on each. The land is within the Residential-B district which allows up to six units per lot but an additional six can be built if they meet the city’s affordability guidelines.
NDS staff issued a denial on April 10. The letter is not within the portal.
Other projects not yet approved:
One project for 133 Stribling Avenue would see “development of a delapadated [sic] home into a two lot multifamily development of 12 units” on a one acre parcel on land designated as Residential-B. An entity called 133 Stribling LLC purchased the property in August 2023 for $585,000. The most recent document in the permit portal is a letter of denial from NDS dated May 15, 2024. You can read that here.
Another project that has to be resubmitted is a site plan to add an additional three units at 1317 East Market Street. NDS requested a resubmission on July 30, 2024, according to the permit portal. This was an early submission and none of the materials are viewable in the portal.
PL-24-0141 is for several changes to at 522 2nd Street Southeast, Suite E. That’s the address of Ix Park. NDS staff issued a denial letter on February 7, 2025.
PL-24-0143 would see six units replace a single family house at 1040 St. Clair Avenue. I wrote about this story here. A denial letter was issued by NDS staff on February 10. This is not in the permit portal.
PL-24-0113 would see 12 units built across four lots on Hillcrest Road near the U.S. 250 Bypass. I wrote about this here. An initial denial letter (not in the portal) was issued by NDS staff on December 20, 2024, but a new plan has been submitted and is under review.
PL-25-0018 would allow an existing church at 211 Albemarle Street for a daycare. The initial submission was denied on March 24 but a resubmission was accepted on April 10.
PL-25-0033 would see three additional units built at 1107 Myrtle Street in the Belmont-Carlton neighborhood under the Residential-A zoning. The existing structure would be retained. This project is under review.
PL-25-0034 is for 117 Harris Road in the Fry’s Spring neighborhood. This project would see the 0.821 acre lot subdivided into two lots with seven units to be constructed on each for a total of 14 rental units. The existing house built in 1957 would remain on one lot. This review of the first submission is still underway.
PL-25-0038 is to allow for a workshop to be built at 1114 East High Street and does not include additional residential units. This is still under review.
PL-25-0040 would seek a total of nine units on a 0.17 acre parcel at 902 Nassau Street. The description reads “three single family detached housing and six single family attached housings on three lots with three sublots.” This project is still under review.
PL-25-0048 is for 303 Palatine Avenue which is a Residential-A property with 0.35 acres. The description in the permit portal is for “3 single family dwellings, 6 duplexes on three lots with 6 sublots.” That’s a total of nine units where there is currently one. No affordable units are required and none are envisioned.
PL-25-0051 is for 122 Apple Tree Road in the Jefferson Park Avenue neighborhood. A firm called Yevam LLC purchased the undeveloped 0.203 acre property in May 2024 for $188,400. Now they have plans to take advantage of the Residential Mixed Use 3 zoning to build “16 residential units and 524 SF of commercial space.” At least one of the units has to be designated as affordable. The project is still underview.
Approvals so far:
A commercial upfit at 221 Carlton Avenue for the BEACON kitchen on July 18, 2024.
On January 30, 2025, NDS staff approved a major development plan for 1609 Gordon Avenue which will see a five-unit apartment building replaced with a 9 units. The zoning here is Residential Mixed Use 5 and this application is one unit short of meeting the threshold of reserving one unit for households making less than 60 percent of the area median income.
Piedmont Housing Alliance is the redevelopment of Friendship Court into Kindlewood in several phases. A Major Development Plan for Phase 3 is listed in the portal as PL-25-0042 and is listed as having a status as being preliminary approved on March 13, 2025. That was in time for the project to meet the cut-off to apply for low-income housing tax credits.
Another affordable housing project had also had its major development plan approved. This is for the 180 units envisioned by the University of Virginia at 1000 Wertland Street. This is listed in the portal as PL-25-0043.
Reading material:
City officials assess Fifth Street traffic issues, McKenna Schonbru, April 14, 2025
Charlottesville looking for input on accessibility plan, Sarah Allen, CBS19 News, April 14, 2025
Charlottesville City Council approves $265+ million budget for FY26, Catie Ratliff, April 15, 2025
#849 is coming close to the wire
I don’t like to get this out after 5 p.m. because I know fewer people read it the later it goes out in the day. Today there are two stories on the same topic. Today’s first story on the hearing in White v. Charlottesville is an example of my practice of journalism as “the first rough draft of history.” I’ll write a second version tomorrow for C-Ville Weekly that will be a little tighter and hopefully give more of a sense of what happens next.
I wanted so much to spend more time on all of the other applications for the Development Code. I know I’m missing some. I think people are interested in this, and this is the sort of thing I’ve been writing since 2007. There are a lot of people who have contributed to paying for my education writing this stuff, all done in a way to explain the process as it is in motion.
But for now, I just want to get this published so I can move on to the next day. I’m grateful to be able to do this and I end with the song playing in the restaurant where I’m writing this and I’m reminded of being much younger when I actually had the ability to relax. Now I can’t relax unless I know people have access to information.
Today there isn’t nearly enough artwork. I’ll work on that next time!