Orange County has filed to amend its position in the ongoing Wilderness Crossing lawsuit, acknowledging an initiation misstep in the creation of the county’s Planned Development-Mixed Use Zoning District.
During a special called meeting Tuesday, Orange County Supervisors approved a resolution acknowledging that a decision made by a previous board establishing the county’s Planned Development-Mixed Use (PDM) Zoning District was not “initiated in the manner required by Virginia Code.” On July 24, 2018, the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted a zoning ordinance amendment establishing the district. The vote followed a July 10 public hearing during which action on the matter was deferred. None of the current sitting supervisors were on that board.
The PDM district was one of three considered as part of the county’s Germanna-Wilderness Area Plan (GWAP), a concept developed in 2013 with a 50-year vision to develop an area to live, work and play with a self-contained designed and developed community. The plan encompassed more than 14,000 acres at the eastern end of the county and was subdivided into eight areas with plans for each. The GWAP was adopted in 2015.
In April 2023, developer Kenny Dotson of KEG Associates III successfully applied for a rezoning of more than 2,600 acres known as the Wilderness Crossing site from primarily agricultural and industrial zoned land to the PDM district. The plans for the project which has been heavily contested include up to 5,000 residential units and 732 acres of industrial use, along with commercial use and possible data centers.
In May 2023, the American Battlefield Trust (ABT), Friends of Wilderness Battlefield, Inc. and Central Virginia Battlefields Trust, Inc., along with residents Mark and Cheryl Nowacki and Robert J. Foster filed suit against Orange County and the board of supervisors challenging the Wilderness Crossing rezoning. The suit consisted of seven counts, but three were later dismissed by Orange County Circuit Court Judge David B. Franzen. The remaining counts allege violations of Virginia law governing rezoning processes, public hearings and taxation.
The resolution adopted Tuesday is not intended to “repeal, rescind, amend, or modify the text of the PDM Zoning District or Orange County Code 70-IV-13; adjudicate the validity of any later rezoning, approval or land use action; determine the rights or obligations of any property owner, applicant, or other person; or alter, supersede, or affect any order entered by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
The resolution directed the county attorney and staff to take “related action consistent with the resolution and those proceedings.” In a prepared statement, the county said it recognizes the importance of the matter and because litigation remains pending, there would be no comments on the merits of the parties’ claims or speculation about the outcome.
“The county will continue to address the matter through the appropriate public and judicial processes,” the statement concluded.
Jaime Wisegarver, an attorney for KEG Associates, III, was at the board meeting, but it was adjourned before she was able to make a comment.
In a release following the meeting, American Battlefield Trust President David Duncan applauded the county’s decision to reexamine the creation of the PDM district and said it mirrors part of the Trust’s legal challenge.
“While we understand the need for the county to proceed in a methodical manner, today’s decision points to only one final result: invalidation of the Wilderness Crossing rezoning,” he said.
Central Virginia Battlefields Trust President Tom Van Winkle agreed.
“Once this landscape is lost to development, it is lost forever,” he said. “In taking a fresh look at the PDM Zoning District approval, the county has made the right decision for local residents and the historic battlefield. We hope the board’s decision signals that this controversy is nearing its end.”
On Wednesday, county attorney Philip Strother filed several motions in the case, including a motion to continue the previously scheduled Feb. 22-24 trial and a motion to file an amended answer. That answer acknowledges the adopted resolution and while not admitting truth to any of the allegations in the suit, withdraws the county’s opposition in the case. The document notes the county “will not oppose plaintiffs’ pursuit of adjudication of the surviving claims,” and “withdraws its previous denials” opposing the plaintiffs’ claims. The county also does not adopt or join any defense, motion or argument made by the landowner defendants.
The motions are expected to be heard in an already scheduled motions hearing in November.
“We have known from the start that the Wilderness Crossing development was not only a detriment to the battlefield, but arose out of an illegal process, and we are thrilled Orange County has reached the same realization,” Duncan said. “Hopefully, the developers behind this wrong-headed mega-development will soon also reach the same conclusion. We look forward to working with the county to find a win-win solution that protects the battlefield as well as the interests of residents and park neighbors.”
Strother did not immediately respond to requests for comments.
