Uploaded: 2024APR17 13:33 Filed By: Bart 48762 MSIPE Reference: EF-143404 E-Fied, 2028APR17 ROANOKE CITY CC HPA GE at 2024APRI7 16:06 CL24000723-00 VIRGINA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Anthony R. Stavola, Trustee wa Anthony R.—) Stavola Revocable Living Trust dated May 13.) 2005, as amended: Anthony R. Stavola; William) M. Hackworth and Ann A. Hackworth; David) G. Harrison, Trustee w/a David George Harrison ) Revocable Trust Agreement dated May 19, ) 2022; David G. Harrison; Catherine C ) Greenberg: Jeffrey Maxwell Cutright and 7 Leonita Hannon Cutright; John L, Hartis Ill and ) Judy B. Harris; David A. Bowers; and Philip N. Morgan Plaintiffs, v. City of Roanoke, Virginia, Serve: ‘Timothy R. Spencer, City Atomey 215 Chureh Avenue SW Room 464 Roanoke, VA 24011 Case No City Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, Serve: ‘Timothy R. Spencer, City Attomey 215 Church Avenue SW Room 464 Roanoke, A 24011 Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, Timothy R. Spencer, City Attomey 215 Church Avenue SW Room 464 Roanoke, A24011 Defendants, lof 26COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF COMES NOW Plaintiffs Anthony R. Stavola, Trustee w/a Anthony R. Stavola Revocable Living Trust dated May 13, 2005, as amended, Anthony R. Stavola, William M, Hackworth and Ann A. Hackworth, David G. Harrison, Trustee wa David George Harrison Revocable Trust Agreement dated May 19, 2022, David G. Harrison, Catherine C. Greenberg, Jeffrey Maxwell Cutright and Leonita Hannon Cutright, John L. Harris IIL and Judy B. Harris, David A. Bowers, and Philip N. Morgan (collectively "Plaintifis") by counsel and proceeding pursuant to Va. Code Section 8.01- 184, et seq. and Va. Code Section 15.2-2285(F), bring this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the zoning ordinance amendments adopted by the City Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (the "Council") on March 18, 2024 (the " ‘oning Amendments”) are void ab initio and invalid due to failure to conform with mandatory stalvsry requirements and other law, and state the following in support NATURE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment This action, brought under Va. Code Section 8.01-184, secks declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Couneil and the Commission for unlawfully amending the Zoning ent that Ordinance in enacting the Zoning Amendments. Plaintiff§ request a declaratory jus the Couneit's and Commission's actions in adopting the Ordinance and Zoning Amendments were ultra vires as it did not comply with statutory requirements and the Couneil's and Commission's actions are taus void ab initio, As a result, the Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive reliefs. 2 of 26Venue and Jurisdiction This Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants and venue is proper pursuant to Vit, Code Section 8,01-184, INTRODUCTION Ending of Single-Family Zoning The City Council of the City of Roanoke recently took the significant step of ending gle-furily housing zoning within the City by adopting a set of amendments to the City's zoning ordinance. In doing so, the Council rushed the process for approving these zoning changes, adopting them with disregard to state law requirements for public notice. Such notice requirements are intended ‘© promote public participation in local governments! zoning legislation processes. The Commission and Council also failed undertake any studies or give reasonable consideration to factors that state law requires localities to examine when enacting changes to zoning ordinances. Zoning Changes Constitute Up-zoning Adversely Impacting Residents and Owners ‘The amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which Council adopted constitute an unheralded up-zoning of all areas of the City that were previously zoned principally for single- family housing. Under the new zoning regulations, the density and number of dwelling units permitted in residential districts is increased in some cases to more than double that now existing. This increased density of dwellings will lead to increased traffic and increased parking demand in the neighborhoods that will narrow travel lanes, create competition forparking, and 3 of 26result in traffic and parking conflicts. The construction of multiple dwellings on lots originally designed, laid out and intended for single-family residences will adversely alter the character of the neighborhoods, Increased construction of housing will produce greater impacts on the environment due to increased stormwater runoff in streets and yards and loss of tree canopy This tivity will reduce water quality and air quality. Such a significant inerease in density will also impact schools and the delivery of public services. Failure to Follow State Mandated Legislative Process for 0 ng Ordinance Changes Virginia state law calls for steps to be taken in the legislative process for amending zoning ordinances that go beyond what is required in the legislative process for other general ordinances. State law requires a formal process for initiation of any proposed zoning ordinance along with formal referral by Council to Planning Commission for study and review of proposed changes, Proposed zoning ordinance changes must be advertised in a local newspaper of general circulation, Such ads must run for two weeks. A physical copy of all proposed ordinance amendments must be available for public inspection at a location within the City, typically the City’s planning offices. Council's changes to Residential Zoning Districts Are Map Classifications Further, the extent of the changes to the single-family residential zoning districts in terms of density and types of uses permitted are so substantive as to constitute a change to the zoning ‘map classification of the properties within the districts, as evidenced by the new names assigned to all of the existing residential districts under the amendments. Since these changes in zoning, ‘map classifications affected over 100 parcels within the City, the newspaper advertisement was, 40f26required to include “a description of the boundaries of the area subject to the changes and a link toa map of the subject area.” Va. Code 15.2-2204(B). Also, a separate written notice was required to be given by the planning commission to each owner of property located within the affected zoning districts at least five days before the Commission's public hearing. None of these steps were taken by the Commission or Council Defective Advertising of Notice The first of the two required advertisements of the Commission's public hearing appeared in the local newspaper on March 4, 2024, only one week before the hearing, The ad stated: "All persons wishing to address the Planning Commission must sign-up with the Secretary to the Planning Commission by emailing planning@roanokeva,gov ot by calling ($40)-853-1730 no later than three business clays before the public hearing. Written comments of interested persons will be received by the Secretary to the Planning Commission at planning @ roanokeva.gov no later than three business days before the public hearing.” In requiing people to sign up to address the Commission and submit any written comments three business days before the public hearing, the Commission allowed at most a day and a half for people to respond. This failed to give interested persons reasonable opportunity to participate in the public hearing process, The advertisement was published a second time on March 11, 2024, the exact same day the commission public hearing was held. This second advertisement was published in the morning edition of the paper, while the Commission meeting was held at 1:30 in the afternoon, in the middle of most people's workday. Any citizen leaning ofthe public hearing for the first time from this second newspaper advertisement, any chance of appearing before the Commission or even submitting written comments to the Commission would he hopeless since there was no Sof 26possibility of meeting the requirement to respond three business «lays before the public hearing, This advertisement is at odds with the fundamental purpose of the state law requiring advance notice of the public hearing "to generate informed public participation by providing citizens with information about the content of the proposed amendments and the forum for debate concerning those amendments." Glazebrook et al. v, Bd, of Sup's of Spotsylvania County, 266 Va. $50, $55 (2003). The City also failed to provide notice of a physical location where a copy of the proposed ordinance would be available for inspeetion by the public. Notice Actually Given Was Unreasonable and Ineffective. No generalized summary or description of the purpose of the zoning amendments sufficient to enable citizens to determine from the notice whether they would be affected by the proposed changes was ever published or provided by the City. Gas Mart Corp, v, Bd. of Supervisors, 269 Va. 334, 347 (2005). The newspaper advertisements only provided a link to a website with a "redlined” copy of the proposed changes to various sections of text spread throughout the zoning ordinance. This document required members of the public to read through humerous strike-outs and additions to the language of the text of speeifie detailed regulations and analyze them to figure out their overarching effect. The only statement about the amendments published was one that appeared in the newspaper ads and in the siaff report distributed at the meetings. It read: "Proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by amending and reordaining, adding, or deleting the following code sections to remove barriers for the creation of affordable housing, to make the zoning ordinance consistent with state code, to create an additional zoning district (UC Urban Center), and to make changes to the use tables for the residential, multiple purpose, industrial, and planned unit development districts; such amendments not constituting a comprehensive 6 of 26rezoning or change of any densities that would decrease permitted density in any district, unless otherwise noted" This statement utterly failed to indicate the enormity of the proposed changes which substantially increase density in all single-family residential zoning districts [T]he intent of the statute Va, Code Section 15.2-2204 is 1o generate informed public participation by providing citizens with information about the content of the proposed amendments and the forum for debate concerning those amendments." Glazebrook, 266 Va. $50, 555 (2003). The advertised notice failed to do so. PLAINTIFFS 1. Anthony R, Stavola, Trustee wa Anthony R. Stavola Revocable Living Trust dated May 13, 2005, as amended, (the "Stavola Trust") is the owner of real property located at 1836 Greenwood Rd, SW, Roanoke, VA 24015 and described in the records of the City of Roanoke as ‘Tax Parcel No. 1441508. The property is located in the “Raleigh Court" neighborhood of the City of Roanoke. Mr. Stavola resides in the single-family residence situated on the property. 2. The Stavola Trust property prior to adoption of the Zoning Amendments on March 18, 2024 was zoned "Residential Single Family (R-7)." Under the Zoning Amendments, the property is to be zoned "R-7 Residential District." 3. The Anthony R. Stavola Revocable Living Trust dated May 13, 2005, as amended, as Property owner, has a direct, pecuniary and substantial interest in the Zoning Amendments because they will likely resul sed higher tax assessments to the property due to the inci density permitted under the Zoning Amendments. The Stavola Trust faces harm to its property rights and imposition of a burden different from that suffered by the public generally. 70264, Anthony R. Stavola, as a resident, also has a ditect, pecuniary and substantial interest in the Zoning Amendments because they will result in greater traffic, increased parking congestion, loss of tree cover, and will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood in whieh he lives. Mr. Stavola, as a resident, faces harm to his property rights and imposition of a burden upon him different from that suffered by the public generally 3. William M. Hackworth and Ann A. Hackworth (the Luckworths") are the owners of real property located at 2202 Carter Rd, SW, Roanoke, VA 24015 and described in the records of the City of Roanoke as Tax Parcel No. 1540501. The property is located in the "Raleigh Court" neighborhood of the City of Roanoke. The Hackworths reside in the single-family residence situated on the property. 6, The property prior to adoption of the Zoning Amendments on March 18, 2024 was zoned “Residential Single Family (R-7)." Under the Zoning Amendments, the property is to be zoned °"R-7 Residential District.” 7, The Hackworths have a direct, pecuniary and substantial interest in the Zoning Amendments because they will fikely result in higher tax assessments to their property due to the increased density permitted under the Zoning Amendments and they will result in greater traffic, increased parking congestion, loss of tree cover, and will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood in which they live. The Hackworths face harm to their property rights and imposition of a burden upon them different from that suffered by the public generally. 8. David G. Harrison, Trustee wa David George Harrison Revocable Trust Agreement dated May 19, 2022, (the "Harrison Trust") is the owner of real property located at $305 Medmont Cir SW, Roanoke, VA 24018 and described in the records of the City of Roanoke as Tax Parcel No. 8 of 265130108. The property is located in the "Greater Deyerle” neighborhood of the City of Roanoke. Mr. Harrison resides in the single-family residence situated on the property 9. The property prior 1o adoption of the Zoning Amendments on March 18, 2024 was zoned Residential Single Family (R-12)." Under the Zoning Amendments, the property is to be zoned "R-12 Residential District." 10. The David George Harrison Revocable Trust Agreement diated May 19, 2022, as property owner, has a direct, pecuniary and substantial interest in the Zoning Amendments because they will likely result in higher iax ments to the property due to the increased density permitted under the Zoning Amendments. The Harrison Trust faces harm to its property rights and imposition of a burden different from that suffered by the public generally. I. David G. Harrison, as a resident, also has a direct, pecuniaty and substantial interest in the Zoning Amendments because they will result in greater traffic. inereased parking, congestion, loss of tree cover, and will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood in which he lives. Mr. Harrison, as a resident, faces harm to his property rights and imposition of a burden upon him different from that suffered by the public generally. 12, Catherine C. Greenberg is the owner of real property located at 1029 Oakwood Dr. SW Roanoke, VA 24015 and described in the records of the City of Roanoke as Tax Parcel No. 1260113, The property is located in the "Oakwood" neighborhood of the City of Roanoke. Ms. Greenberg resides in the single-family residence situated on the property. 13, The property prior ‘o adoption of the Zoning Amendments on March 18, 2024 was zoned "Residential Single Family (R-7)." Under the Zoning Amendments, the property is to be zoned "R-7 Residential Distric 9 0f 2614, Ms, Greenberg has a direct, pecuniary and substantial interest in the Zoning Amendments because they will likely result in higher tax assessments to her property due to the increased density permitted under the Zoning Amendments and they will result in greater traffic, increased parking congestion, loss of tree cover, and will negatively impuct the character of the neighborhood in which she lives. Ms. Greenberg faces harm to her property tights and imposition of a burden upon her different from that suffered by the public generally 15. Jeffrey Maxwell Cutright and Leonita Hannon Cutright (the "Cutrights") are the owners of real property located at 5527 Medmont Cir. SW, Roanoke, VA 24018 and deseribed in the records of the City of Roanoke as Tax Parcel No. 5130508. The property is located in the "Greater Deyerle" neighborhood of the City of Roanoke. The Cutrights reside in the single~ family residence situated on the property. 16. The property prior to adoption of the Zoning Amendments on March 18, 2024 was zoned "Residential Single Family (R-12)." Under the Zoning Amendments, the property is to be zoned "R-12 Residential District." 17, The Cutrights have a direct, pecuniary and substantial interest in the Zoning Amendments, because they will likely result in higher tax assessments to their property due to the increased density permitted under the Zoning Amendments and they will result in greater traffic, increased parking congestion, loss of tree cover, and will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood in which they live, The Cutrights face harm to theit property rights and imposition of a burden upon them different from that suffered by the public generally. 18. John L. Harris 111 and Judy B. Harris (the "Harrises") are the owners of real property located at $423 Medmont Cir, SW, Roanoke, VA 24018 and deseribed in the records of the City ‘of Roanoke as Tax Parcel No. $130403. The property is located in the "Greater Deyerle” 10 of 26neighborhood of the City of Roanoke. The Harrises reside in the single-family residence situated on the property. 19. The property prior to adoption of the Zoning Amendments on March 18, 2024 was zoned “Re jential Single Family (R-12)." Under the Zoning Amendments, the property is to be zoned -12 Residential District " 20. The Harrises have a direct, pecuniary and substantial interest in the Zoning Amendments because they will likely result in higher tax assessments to their property due to the increased density permitted under the Zoning Amendments and they will result in greater traffic, increased parking congestion, loss of tree cover, and will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood in which they live. ‘The Harrises face harm to their property rights and imposition of a burden upon them different from that suffered by the public venerally. 21. David A. Bowers is the owner of real property located at 601 Camilla St. SE, Roanoke, VA 24014 and described in the records of the City of Roanoke as Tax Parcel No. 4041501, The property is located in the "Walnut Hills” neighborhood of the City of Roanoke. Mr. Bowers resides in the single-family residence situated on the property 22, The property prior to adoption of the Zoning Amendments on March 18, 2024 was zoned “Residential Single Family (R-12)." Under the Zoning Amendments, the property is to be zoned "R-I2 Residential District.” 23, Mr. Bowers has a direct, pecuniary and substantial interest in the Zoning Amendments because they will likely result in higher tax assessments to his property due to the inereased density permitted under the Zoning Amendments and they will result in greater traffic, increased parking congestion, loss of tree cover, and will negatively impact the character of the 11 of 26neighborhood in which he lives, Mr. Bowers faces harm to his property rights and imposition of a burden upon him different from that suffered by the public nterally. 24, Phillip N. Morgan is the owner of real property located at 626 Walnut Ave, SW, Roanoke, VA 24016 and described in the records of the City of Roanoke as Tax Parcel No, 1131104. The property is located in the "Old Southwest” neighborhood of the City of Roanoke Mr. Morgan resides in the single-family residence situated on the property 25. The property prior 10 adoption of the Zoning Amendments on March 18, 2024 was zoned “Residential Mixed Use (RM-1)." Under the Zoning Amendments, the property is to be zoned *RM-1 Residential Distrit.” 26. Mr. Morgan has « direct, pecuniary and substantial interest in the Zoning Amendments because they will likely result in higher tax assessments to his property due to the inereased density permitted under the Zoning Amendments and they will result in greater traffi, increased parking congestion, loss of tree cover, and will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood in which he lives. Me. Morgan faces harm to his property rights and imposition of a burden upon him different from that suffered by the publi enerally. DEFENDANTS 27. The City of Roanoke is a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 28. The City Council of the City of Roanoke is the governing body of the City of Roanoke, Virginia with powers conferred by the General Assembly of Vituinia. 29. The Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke is a body appointed by the Council and is charged under Va. Codle Section 15.2-2210 to "promote the orderly development of the 12 of 26locality and its environs." The Commission is further tasked with “recommending the boundaries of the various original districts and appropriate regulations to be enforced therein.” Section 65(e) of the Roanoke Charter of 1952, The Commission provides advice to the Council and must make a recommendation to the Council on all aetions involving changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Va. ‘ode Section 15,2-2288, STATEMENT OF FACTS 30. The City of Roanoke has in place a zoning ordinance originally adopted in 979 and readopted in December 2005 that is found in Chapter 36.2 Zoning of the Code of the City of Roanoke, as amended (the "Zoning Ordinance"). This Zoning Ordinance divides the area of the City geographically into different, distinct zoning districts and permits different types of land uses within cach of these distinct zoning districts 31. Several zoning dis! s were specifically crafted to provide principally for single-family residences and limited other uses, including in some cases other types of housing. These include the "Residential Single Farnily (R-7)" and the "Residential Single Family (R-12)" zoning district 32. The comprehensive plan adopted in 2005 is named "Vision 2001-2020." Subsequent to the adoption of Vision 2001-2020, the City adopted a series of neighborhood based "community plans" intended to tailor planning in more detail for specific neighborhoods. 33. Among these community plans, the City adopted the "Riverland/Walnut Hill Neighborhood Plan" on July 19, 2004, the "Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan" in August 21, 2006 and the "Greater Raleigh Court Neighborhood Plan” in May 21, 2007. 34, These Neighborhood Plans set out specific recommendations for each respective neighborhood and were each adopted as part of the Vision 2001-2020 comprehensive plan. 13 of 2635. The Raleigh Court Neighborhood Plan noted that "the high concentration of single-family houses has long been cited as one of the neighborhood's foremost attributes.” Raleigh Court Neighborhood Plan p. 12. Italso noted that "[rlesidents take pride in the high quality of life of their neighborhood but have concerns about potential negative effects of higher density residential and commercial development." Id. at p. 11. The Ral Court Neighborhood Plan stated a5 a design policy that "the neighborhood should retain iis overall traditional character and development patterns, New development should be compatible with the neighborhood, consistent with the design guidelines of the Vision 2001-2020, and use limited land resources efficiently.” Id. at p. 40. 36. The Council adopted a new comprehensive plan titled "City Plan 2040" on December 21, 2020. City Plan 2024 expressly states that the Neighborhood Plans were to be “earried forward" as part of the new City Plan 2040, City Plan 2040) at p. 77. The Neighborhood Plans thus continue to be considered part of the overall comprehensive plan tor the City and their recommendations for cach of the neighborhoods continue to be valid expressions of the Ci goals and plans for the neighborhoods. The City has not revised the Neighborhood Plans since adoption of City Plan 2040, 37. In 2024 the City 100k up a set of proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance with the intent of putting an end to zoning districts that provided for si family housing as the predominant housing type. 38." The Commission held a regular meeting on February 12, 2024 which began at 1:30 p.m. During their meeting on this date, the Commission made and approved a motion to schedule a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Amendments for their March 11,2024 meeting, 14 of 2639. The City’s staff caused a notice of the public hearing to be published in the Roanoke ‘Times edition published on March 4, 2024. copy of the notice is attached as Exhibit A. 40, The notice listed specific changes to various detailed sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The notice did not provide any summary or other general description of the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance that would reasonably inform the public as to the purpose or intent of the changes proposed. 41. ‘The exact same notice again appeared in the Roanoke Times edition published on March 11, 2024, a copy of whieh is attached as Exhibit B. 42, The Commission held a public hearing on the very same day that the second publication of the notice occurred, March 11,2024. The public hearing was held during the Commission's regularly scheduled mecting. This regular meeting began at 1:30 p.m. in the afternoon. At the end of the hearing the Commission voted to recommend adoption of the Zoning Amendments. 43. The Council held a public hearing to take comments from the public regarding the proposed Zoning Amendments on March 18, 2024 during their regular meeting which began at 7:00 p.m. During the public hearing, a majority of the persons from the public who appeared spoke against Council adopting the proposed zoning amendments. At the end of the public hearing the Council nevertheless voted to adopt an ordinance, numbered 42902-03 1824, amending and re-ordaining certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance specifically comprising the Zoning Amendments (the "Ordinance"). A copy of the Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 44, Prior to of the Zoning Amendments, the purpose of the R-12, R-7, R-S and R-2 residential single family zoning districts was to protect what are primarily single-family residential neighborhoods. After adoption of the Zonii mendments, emphasis on protection of residential single family uses and the existin character of the zoning districts is removed 15 of 26CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT 1. City Council and the Plinning Commission failed to properly initia and the Council failed to refer, the proposed Zoning Amendments as required under Va. Code Sections 15,2-2286(A)7 and 15.2-2285(B). 45. Allof the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by this reference. 46. Virginia state law requires any amendment of zoning rewulations or zoning district maps by the locality "be initiated by resolution of the governing body or by motion of the local planning commission” and that "[alny such resolution or motion by such governing body or commission proposing the rezoning shall state the above public purposes therefor.” The public purposes referenced includes at a minimum "the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice." 47. The minutes of the Commission's February 12, 2024 meeting state only that the Commission made "a motion to schedule the public hearing for March 11, 2024 or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider proposed amcniments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended.” The motion did not state the public purposes therefore as required under Va. Code ction 15.2-2286(AY7 and provided no summary or description whatever of the proposed changes to the existing Zoning Ordinance that would alert the public to the substance of what was being proposed. 48, Even after this firs! step in the zoning amendment process of initiation, Virginia state law states that "[nJo zoning ordinance shall be amended or reenacted unless the governing body has referred the proposed amendment or reenactment to the local planning commission for its recommendations." Va. Code Section 15.2-2285(B). The governing body must thus agree to 16 of 26review of all proposed amendments by the Commission even if the proposed changes are originally initiated by the Commission. 49. Atno point did the Council take an action to refer the proposed Zoning Amendments to the Commission for its recommend: 50. These formal steps to initiate and refer any proposed coning amendments are to be taken at the beginning of any process to amend a zoning ordinance, before the scheduling and advertising of any public jicarings. 51. Because there was no formal initiation by resolution of the Council or by motion of the Commission that meets the requirements of state code, and there was no formal action by the Council referring the proposed Zoning Amendments to the Commission for review, the Commission's and Couneil's actions in recommending and adopting the Zoning Amendments were outside of the authority granted by the General Assembly and were ultra vires and thus void ab initio. Glazebrook, 266 Va. 550, $54 (2003) citing City Council of the City of Alexandria v Potomac Greens Assoc., 245 Va. 371, 378 (1993), COUNT 2. City Council and the Planning Commission failed to provide public 2204 notice of the proposed Zoning Amendments as required under Va. Code Sections 15. and 15.2-2285, 52. Allof the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by this reference, 53. As previously noted, the entire intent of local government's providing publie notice of proposed zoning ordinance changes is to "generate informed public participation." Glazebrook, 266 Va. 550, 555 (2003), 17 of 26Failure to Give Adequate Notice of Commission Public Hearing 54. Virginia Code Section 15.2-2285 imposes a requirement that a "commission shall hold at east one public hearing a proposed ordinance or any amendment ofan ordinance, after notice as required by Va. Code Section 15.2-2204. Virginia, Code Section 15.2-2204 sets out requirements for such notice. It states that "[t]he local planning commission shall not recommend, nor the goveming body adopt any plan. ordinance or amendment thereof until notice of intention to do so bas been published once a week for wvo successive weeks in some newspaper published or having general circulation in the locality.” This requirement for notice to be published for nwo weeks prior to public hearing applies equally to both the Commission and the governing body $5. As noted, the notice published by the City ran in the newspaper on March 4. only on week before the Commission's public hearing. and on March 11, the same day as the public hearing. The Commission failed t0 give two weeks notice to the public of the Commission's public hearing and thus foiled to meet the notice requi s set out in state law, The Commission's action to recommend adoption of the Zoning Amendments to Council is thus ultra res rending the action void ab initio and the necessary procedural step of the Commission making recommendation to the Council is invalid Failure to identify the place or places within the loculity where copies of the proposed plans, ordinances or amendments may be examined. 56. Va, Code Section 15, 2-2204 requires that "every adh evtisement shall identify the place or places within the locality where copies of the proposed plans ordinances or amendments may be examined.” The notice published by the City does not state any place within the locality where 18 of 26copies of the proposed plans, ordinances or amendments may be examined, Provision of a physical place where copies of the proposed plans, ordinances or amendments may be examined. typically within the City's offices, is a long-standing practice The advertisement ran by the City failed to list a place where citizens ean inspect a physical of copy of the proposed Zonin: Amendments. The City failed to provide such a place and made no provision for inspection of a copy of the proposed Zoning Amendments, Failure to provide a descriptive summary or other information that would inform public about the purpose and content of the Proposed Amendments. 57. Asnoted earlier the intent of the statute Va. Code Scetion 15.2-2204 "is to generate informed public participation by providing citizens with information about the content of the proposed amendments." (Glazehrook, 266 Va. 550, $55 (2003), For notice to be adequate, 2 citizen must be able to "reasonably determine, from the notice, whether he or she was affected by the proposed amendments." Id. at 556. COUNT 3. Proposed Zoning Amendments constitute change in the zoning map classification of Plaintiffs' Properties and the City failed to provide written no accordingly. $8. All of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by this reference 59. The proposed changes to the various residential districts are so extensive that they fundamentally change the purpose and intent of such districts. Changes to the regulations applied within the residential districts are so extensive that the districts are transformed into something entirely different than what they were before the Zoning Amendments were adopted. 19 of 26‘The new provisions for increased density of dwellings and reduced setbacks and other changes to the regulations will result in an entirely different type of residential development occurring in the districts and will fundamentally change the character of the districts over time. 60. That the textual changes adopted by the City do result in the effect of creating entirely new zoning district classifications was recognized by City staf! as they renamed the distriets as part of the Zoning Amendments, The previously existing "Residential Single Family (R-7)" zoning district has now become the "R-7 Residential District” and the previously existing "Residential Single Family (R-12)" zoning district has now become the "R-12 Residential Distr 61. Whenever changes to a zoning ordinance involve a change to the zoning district classifications, additional forms of notice are required under stale statutory law. Failure to provide a description of the boundaries of the area subject to the changes and a link 10a map of the area subject t0 the changes. 62. Virginia Code Seetion 15.2-2204(B) requi s any proposed amendment of the zoning ordinance involving a change in the zoning map classification of more than 100 parcels to include in the advertisement "a description of the boundaries of the area subject to the changes and a link to a map of the subject area.” First, the notice of the public hearing must contain a description of the boundaries of the area subject to the changes and a link to a map of the subject area, The City failed to provide written notices. 63. Second, "[w}ritten notice shall be given by the local planning commission, or its representative, at least five days before the hearing to the owner, owners, or their agent of each 20 of 26parcel of land involved.” Va. Code Section 15.2-2204(B). Further, it is required that "a representative of the local commission shall make affidavit that such mailings have been made and file such affidavit with the papers in the ease.” Id. 64. In this matter, no written notice was given by the Commission to the owner, owners, or their agent of each parcel of land affected by the changes." 65. The City failed to provide these additional forms of notices, even as the City recognized that the textual changes in the Zoning Amendments do change the fundamental purpose and character of the zoning map classifications. 66. The Virginia Supreme Court has stated that “a citizen must be able reasonably [to] determine, from the notice, whether he or she was affected by she proposed amendments,” Gas ‘Mart, 269 Va, 334, 347 (2005) citing Glazebrook, 266 Va, at 56, When a citizen cannot reasonably determine from the notice that they were affected by the proposed amendments, the requirements of Va. Code Section 15.2-2204(,A) are not satisfied. Id, 67. Due to the various and multiple failures of the City, Council and Commission to adhere lents and to state law and provide adequate and meaningful notice, plaintifts and other members of the public were not reasonably able to determine if the proposed Zoning Amendments would apply to them or affect properties in which they had an interest 68. The Commission's action to recommend adoption of the Zoning Amendments to the Council is thus ultra vires rending the action void ab initio. ‘The necessary procedural step of the Commi mn making a recommendation to the Council is thus invalid and in and of itself, this ‘makes the Councils action in adopting the Ordinance void ab initio. 21 of 26COUNT 4, The City Council and the Planning Commission failed to reasonably consider the purposes required under Va. Code Section 15.2-2283. 69. Allof the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by this reference. 70. Virginia Code Section 15.2-2283 requires that all zoning ordinances and their amendments: "shall be designed to give reasonable consideration to cach of the following Purposes, where applicable: (i) to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood, impounding structure failure, crime and other dangers; (ii) to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets: (iii) to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community: (iv) to facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; (v) to protect against destruction of or encroachment upon histor areas and working waterfront development areas; (vi) to protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available. obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, impounding structure failure, panic or other dangers: (vil) to encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base: (vii) to provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment: (ix) to protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; (x) to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing suitable for meeting the current and future needs of the locality as well as a reasonable proportion of the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated: (xi) to provide reasonable protection against encroachment upon military bases, military installations, and military airports and their adjacent safety areas, excluding armories operated by the Virginia National Guard; and (xii) to provide reasonable modifications in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.) or siate and federal fair housing laws, as applicable." 22 of 2671. The Commission and Council, in crafting the Zoning Aniendments, failed to design and give reasonable consideration to the purposes for zoning ordinances set forth in Va. Code Section 15.2-2283 72. By failing to design and give reasonable consideration to these purposes, the Commission's and Council's actions recommending approval and adopting the Zoning ‘Amendments were ultra vires and void ab initio 73. Even if not ultra vires, their failure to design and give reasonable consideration to these purposes set forth in Va, Code 15.2-2283 resulted in the Zoning Amendments being without reasonable relation to public health, safety, morals or general welfare, and being arbitrary and capricious and unreasonable thus rendering the Zoning Amendments void. COUNT 5. The Council and the Commission failed to reasonably consider factors required under Va. Code Section 15.2-2284. 74, Allof the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by this reference. 75. Va, Code Section 15.2-2284 requires that "[zloning ordinances and distriets shall be drawn and applied with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of property, the comprehensive plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and furure requirements of the community as to Jand for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community. the requirements for airports housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, reereation areas and other public service the conservation of natural resources, the preservation of flood plains, the protection of life and property from impounding structure failures, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the locality. 23 of 2676, Because the Neighborhood Plans were carried forward and incorporated in the City Plan 2040 comprehensive plan, they should have been reasonably vonsidered in draw upon and applied in the creation of the new Zoning Amendments. The Commission and Council failed to implement recommendations of the Neighborhood Plans such :ss the Community Design Policies set forth in the Raleigh Court Neighborhood Plan, 77. The Commis ‘ion and Council also failed to make any effort to study and reasonably consider the potential impacts of the new Zoning Amendments on the transportation requirements of the community and requitements for schools. parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services, 78. The Commission and Council also failed to make any effort to study and reasonably consider impacts of the new higher density development called for under the Zoning Amendments on the City's environment. 79. By failing to make any effort to study and reasonably consider the potential impacts of the new Zoning Amendments on those areas of consideration as called for in Va, Code Section 15.2-2284, the Commi mendments jon and County acted ultra vires, rendering the Zoning 4 void ab initio. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Whereas, the City, Council and Commission have acted to adopt the Ordinance and Zoning Amendments in violation of Virginia statutory authority and state kaw such that the property rights, health, safety morals, and general welfare of the Plaintiffs are affected. The Plaintiffs, for the reasons sforementioned in this Complaint, respeetfially request that this Court declare: 24 of 26a, The Zoning Amendments are void ab initio for failure to comply with notice ments under Va. Code Section 15.2-2204. b. The Zoniny Amendments are void ab initio for failure to comply with notice requirements under Va. Code Section 15.2-2285. The Zoning Amendments are void for failure to reasonably consider the purposes as required under Va. Code Section 15.2-2283 The Zoning Amendments are void for failure to reasonably consider the factors as required under Va, Code Section 15.2-2284. €. Actions by the Commission to recommend and hy she Council to adopt the Zoning Amendments were arbitraty and capricious, and not bearing reasonable or substantial relation to the public health, safety morals, and general welfare and the Zoning Amendments are ‘The Plaintiffs also respectfully request this Court enjoin the City from taking any actions, to implement the Zoning Amendments including taking any actions to issue permits or approve applications for development under the Zoning Amendments and award such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Anthony R. Stavola, Trust Stavola Revocable Living Trust ed May 13, 20005, as amended; Anthony R. tavola; William M. Hackworth and Ann A. Hackworth; David G, Harrison, Trustee w/a David George Harrison Revocable Trust Agreement ated May 19, 2022: David G. Harrison; Catherine C. Greenberg: Jeffrey Maxwell Cutright and Leonita Hannon Cutright; John L, Harris If and Anthony R. 25 of 26Judy B. Harris; David A. Bowers and Philip N. Morgan. By Counsel Boyd & Sipe, PLC 105 N Ist Street Suite 202 Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434)-249-9134 maynard@boydandsipe.com 26 of 26