City Council purportedly re-zoned the property. The tax maps in effect in 2003, when
City Council enacted the 2003 Ordinance, is clearly a probative factor in determining
whether the 2003 Ordinance re-zoned the Daughter Parcels. Further evidence are the
City's own maps of IPP-zoned property which continue, to date, to show the entire
Property as IPP. Finally, the near-uniformity of the language wherein City Council
originally zoned the Parent Parcel in 1993 and that language used in the 2003 Ordinance
suggests that City Council did not in fact intend to change the zoning on the Parent Parcel
or Daughter Parcels. There is virtually no evidence that Plaintiff is aware of that City
Council either intended to, or actually did, remove the IPP-zoning from the Property
when enacting the 2003 Ordinance.
A. Defendants' Pleas in Bar
By Plaintiff's reading of the Defendants' briefs, the single dispositive issue in this
case is the issue of whether the 30-day statute of limitations prohibits this Court from
determining whether City Council re-zoned the Daughter Parcels in 2003. Clearly it does
not.
The Defendants' pleas in bar rest on the incorrect supposition that the Plaintiff's sole
claim is that the 2003 Ordinance, as it pertains to the purported re-zoning of the Daughter
Parcels, was void ab initio because of the failure of the City to give the notice required by
Virginia Code sections 15.2-2204 and 15.2-2285. As is indicated above, the Plaintiff's
argument is two-fold, namely, that when enacting the 2003 Ordinance, the City did not