Concerned Over Code Refresh? Join the NeighborhoodS.

Concerned Over Code Refresh? Join the NeighborhoodS.

NeighborhoodS are concerned!

• Loosening Zoning Does NOT Lessen Our Affordable Housing Crisis.

• RKG Associates' Consultant Conflict: Beyond Subdivisions: Mapping the By-Right Density Expansion in Richmond’s RA and RM Districts

• Homes for All Our Neighbors is... MISLEADING and ANTI sustainability.

• Code Refresh Eliminates Family, to Bring Back Rooming Houses.

Don't believe a tuk tuk, WHERE'S THE INFRASTRUCTURE?

Want a sign? Order yours here.

That's not all that's missing. Stay tuned, for more.

December 5

We are pleased to see some changes to the proposed zoning codes and land use regulations in Code Refresh Draft 2, but believe that these zoning and land use reforms will mean monumental changes for neighborhoods city-wide, and so should be carefully researched and vetted for potential outcomes. 

We heard from neighborhoods who are not pleased with draft 2.0 and from others who have felt excluded from the conversation. This is worth taking our time to get it right and to engage as many stakeholders as possible, including those often marginalized. If you believe that the process should be slowed down to ensure that the process ensures open, effective dialogues with stakeholders, that we have as many tools as possible in the toolkit to incentivize the kinds of diverse and affordable housing as we need for our future, and that land use regulations regarding conditional uses and criteria for bonuses awarded to developers are clearly defined, then sign the petition today!

As we chew over Code Refresh's 2nd Draft, a few items come to mind:

1. The preservation bonus is a good step. Richmond values carbon life cycles and historic charm! Retrofit is 60% less expensive, greener than any new build, and doesn't displace residents! Carbon counts in whole life cycle impacts on communities, and thus there should also be a demolition tax!

2. We don't understand how sublots and duplexes will create affordable housing vs. removing affordable housing to become luxury rentals and short-term rentals remotely owned. Where is zoning's action on STR oversight on these majority remotely-owned illegal Airbnbs? Investors are already speculating on their next lucrative duplex possibilities that used to be affordable housing.

3. Land values continue to rise and upzoning raises them further! Displacement is underway.

4. Height transition standards must be driven by solar impacts! Mandatory shadow-modeling for anything over 3 stories to allow solar opportunities for ALL OUR NEIGHBORS! Richmond is supposed to be Net Zero by 2050.

5. Tree canopies must be protected and not diminished. Tree Removal Permits for any tree 4" in diameter!

6. We love adaptive reuse of churches, especially for affordable housing! YIGBY (Yes In God's Back Yard) is great but it seems like the majority of properties are simply being sold instead being redeveloped affordably. MX3 has huge implications on communities and should be more gentle.

7. WHERE'S THE INFRASTRUCTURE? We can't evolve without adequate sewer, solar, water, and other utilities. The Department of Public Utilities and Department of Public Works staff must be part of the Code Refresh process.

RKG Associates' Conflict: Beyond Subdivisions: Mapping the By-Right Density Expansion in Richmond’s RA and RM Districts

This quiet street, made up of mostly 2-story owned and rented homes, has now been zoned mixed-use 5 stories allowing 6 units by right. Investors are enticed, and local home buyers lose out.

An analysis submitted by a resident of Southside shows conflicts and missing data in RKG Associates' study that claims "...even under the most intense development scenario, Richmond’s citywide rezoning would lead to the addition of new units on just under 300 lots in existing single family neighborhoods annually."

"The Richmonder March 19 report on the RKG Associates study presents an incomplete dataset by focusing on 'subdivision feasibility' rather than volumetric density increases. While the study grounds its findings in RD lot constraints, it fails to account for the by-right density shifts in the RA (Residential Attached) and that Code Refresh made them RM-A (6 units), RM-B (12 units), and RM-C (unlimited Residential Mixed-use) districts.

1. The 1,200% Volumetric Loophole

The study calculates impact based on "new lots" created, ignoring unit-counts per existing lot. In the RA-C district (prevalent in the 23223 and 23220 zip codes), the 2026 Code Refresh allows for "Stacked Flats" of up to 12 units per building by-right. Replacing a single-family structure with a 12-unit multi-family building represents a localized density spike that requires no subdivision. By removing the Special Use Permit (SUP) requirement, the City eliminates the public's ability to audit the infrastructure load of these 1,200% increases before approval. 

2. Fiscal and Infrastructure Incompatibility 

The RKG study ignores the correlation between by-right density and the $47.6 million Department of Public Utilities (DPU) debt anchor.

• Administrative Incapacity: The Finance Department currently reports a 1/3 vacancy rate. 
• The Gap: A city that cannot project its own surplus—revising its $22M estimate down to $12.6M in February—cannot be trusted to monitor the tax compliance or physical load of 12-unit developments in neighborhoods where utility infrastructure is already failing to recover costs. 

3. Forensic Conflict: The 897-Page Nexus 

The "independent" nature of the RKG study is contradicted by SCC filing history. On October 4, 2013, an 897-page batch filing moved ​RKG Associates and thousands of development entities to a centralized administrative hub at 100 Shockoe Slip under Commonwealth Legal Services Corporation (a subsidiary of CSC). 

​RKG Associates shares the exact same Registered Agent and administrative infrastructure as the entities currently land-banking parcels in Blackwell​, a significant conflict of interest. The firm providing the "limited impact" analysis is structurally linked to the organizations benefiting from the rezoning. 

Furthermore, the August 13, 2015, Articles of Domestication for RKG is missing its digital image in the SCC portal, preventing verification of the signatures that link these out-of-state principals to Richmond land-holders. 

The RKG study is an analysis of lot layouts, not community impact. 

For Southside residents, a 1,200% density increase on 19th-century infrastructure is not "limited." It is a fundamental restructuring of our blocks without a corresponding plan to address the $47.6M utility deficit."

District	Pre Code Refresh	Post Code Refresh 2026	Impact
RA-B	1-2 units, duplex	Up to 6 units BY RIGHT	+300% density BY RIGHT
RA-C	1-4 units (Limited)	Up to 12 units BY RIGHT	Multi-Family By-Right Consolidation
RX-4	Variable height	Up to 4 Stories BY RIGHT	Commercial VERTICALITY

About the Author
I live in a historically Black neighborhood south of the James River with my wife and kids, where the sound of the river rapids and the 19th century train trestles are our daily backdrop. We walk our dog, Lucy, past the brick building  of the old Dunbar School and through the streets of Blackwell, while our cat, Tobi, stays home in our historic house. As a member of the Richmond Civic League, I value the preservation of these actual blocks over the abstract models used to justify citywide rezoning. I remain anonymous to keep the focus on the data, but I am a neighbor who sees the consequences of city planning every time I cross the T-Pott bridge.

Homes for All Our Neighbors is... MISLEADING and ANTI sustainability.

This quiet cobblestoned street, a mix of mostly 2-story renter and homeowners is now zoned MX5, allowing 5 stories to shade out neighbors. This will deeply impact the community's solar, soil, sustainability, and resiliency opportunities. 

To: Richmond Office of Sustainability
Subject: Opposition to Homes for all our Neighbors Manifesto
Date: March 18

Homes for All Our Neighbors (HOAN) Endorsement

The Richmond Sustainability and Resilience Commission has on your agenda this week an endorsement of a lengthy statement from Homes for All Our Neighbors regarding the rewriting of Richmond city’s zoning regulations. It is inappropriate for a city entity to support or join such a dubious private coalition.

Most people support the coalition’s stated goals of using the city’s proposed Code Refresh zoning overhaul to:

• “expand housing options,
• promote affordability, and
• prevent existing residents from getting pushed out”.

What is more debatable are the specific policies that are being proposed to try to implement these goals. While we are now in the period between the second and third draft of the proposed ordinance, I would ask you to re-examine and not support that organization’s statement. It contains a number of misleading or inaccurate statements, has one-sided information, and presents speculative assumptions.

In their online statement HOAN states -“What we know: Some of Richmond's most desired neighborhoods could not be built today. Zoning changes in the 1960s and '70s made it illegal to build popular housing types like many of those we see in the Fan, Jackson Ward, Carver, and Church Hill“

WRONG! - There are no “illegal” housing types in the city of Richmond (other than structures that don’t meet standard building codes for safety and construction integrity). There are tens of thousands of parcels in the city that are currently designated for duplexes and row houses. These lots allow construction of new houses exactly like buildings in these listed neighborhoods.

HOAN states - “It’s also illegal to build apartments in most parts of our city. Richmond’s current zoning code allows only single-family homes on 59% of the land here.”

WRONG! -There are apartments of all shapes and sizes in most neighborhoods in the city. There are now many areas that allow large apartment buildings in areas that recently were primarily commercial and industrial. Just look at all the new construction in Scott’s Addition, Shockoe Bottom, lower Chamberlayne Avenue, the Diamond District, and Manchester. Look at all the tall office buildings in downtown that are being converted to apartments.

American Heritage apartments in downtown's Central Business District.

There are no longer any single-family parcels in the city of Richmond. When the zoning code was updated two years ago to allow Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADU), all residential parcels are now “multi-family”. 

HOAN states -“Renters are 58% of our population—a majority competing for a minority of space. Stiff competition drives up prices and pits neighbors against each other.”

MISLEADING! - The percentage of renters in the population has remained fairly steady in recent decades. It is a questionable assertion that there is link between zoning policies and availability of rental units. The economic evaluation has struggled to find correlations between availability of homes for purchase, and rental unit numbers and the availability/affordability of those units.

HOAN states - “In a 2023 resolution declaring a housing crisis, Richmond’s City Council estimated that we have a shortage of at least 23,000 homes.”

MISLEADING! - There have been a number of projections of the Richmond region’s population growth and housing needs incoming decades. These are regional projections and the population growth and related problems problems don’t stop at the city line. Henrico, Chesterfield, Hanover, and even New Kent are integral parts of the solution to area housing needs. Richmond is only a fraction of the area’s population and can’t be expected to solve issues on its own.

HOAN states - “Housing costs are historically high. Mortgage payments today for median-priced homes are double what they were in 2020. Average Richmond rents have jumped by a third in the same span.”

MISLEADING! - Housing costs are indeed high. This is a nationwide problem. Zoning is only a small part of housing cost. Construction materials, labor cost, and land prices all contribute to the total. The solution isn’t to build more houses in already dense and desirable neighborhoods where land prices are high. Affordable housing starts with acquiring and building on parcels where land costs are not as expensive.

HOAN states - “Richmond has room to grow: today’s population is 20,000 lower than in 1970. But the homes we have don't meet the needs of today’s neighbors and families.

MISLEADING! - While the city’s population has dropped over the last 50 years, the available housing stock has continued to increase. There are almost 40,000 more units now than in 1970. Therefore, the amount of housing units is not a direct factor in availability and affordability.

Note the lack of trees & permeability, how this concrete structure (and others) enhance Richmond's urban heat islands WHILE shading historic Black neighborhoods in concrete, permanently destroying their solar benefits in Newtowne West, Carver, Jackson Ward... but I bet those new towers have green roofs and solar for their luxury residents!

HOAN states - “Richmond's legacy of segregation means some neighborhoods have absorbed development pressure while others have been protected. If Code Refresh takes a truly citywide approach, we can ensure all neighborhoods contribute to solving our housing shortage, rather than asking a few to shoulder the entire effort. Richmond has an opportunity to expand housing choice and create less segregated, more inclusive neighborhoods—action required by the federal Fair Housing Act. Our current zoning code sharply limits where families of different backgrounds can live. Code Refresh could help reverse decades of exclusionary policy and create pathways to opportunity for all residents.”

WRONG! - The city’s current housing code was implemented (and has been updated numerous times) under minority leadership. The implication that the desire for zoning rules and preservation of existing neighborhood character is a racial issue is incorrect.

HOAN states - “RVAGreen2050, Richmond's Climate Equity Action Plan, notes that changing our land use and transportation patterns is critical to reducing emissions. Building more housing near transit, jobs, and services can create more walkable areas, resulting in fewer car trips and a greener, healthier city.”

WRONG! - The climate equity action plan and the city’s master plan have a number of environmental goals. Reducing emissions via the zoning update is just one small part. 

Code Refresh has largely ignored or negated many of these environmental protections in other city plans.

• First, there is the inability of the city’s current water, sewer, and stormwater utilities to handle the increased construction incentivized by the proposed rezoning. Much of the utility infrastructure is now 50 years older, and that the environmental requirements are now more stringent, than in 1970. Back then, the city was allowed to dump almost unlimited raw sewage in the James River whenever it rained. The city is now under a strict deadline to reduce its combined sewer overflow.

• More importantly, the dense zoning proposal doesn’t address the issue of the last mile connectivity. We have significantly more dwelling units now than in 1970. In 1970, there were almost 3 people in every dwelling unit. By 2020, the average number of people in each unit was down to 2.1. So while we have fewer people, we have more separate units and connections under our streets, but less capacity to add new units.
  
  
• The new zoning increases the allowable impermeable structures on most city parcels. This will also increase the environmental impact on the James River.
  
  
• The new zoning does for the first time specifically address the tree canopy. However, while there is a small incentive to keep current trees when developing, the plan does little to address the profound benefits of mature trees in carbon sequestration, shade, reducing the heat island effect, and reducing storm runoff.
  
  
• The new zoning proposals generally increase new building height, reducing the ability to use solar panels and have green yards.
  
  
• The master plan incentivized the development of transit corridors by calling for density to be focused on the high frequency transportation networks and the commercial nodes they connect. By increasing density across the board, the zoning proposals are in direct opposition to the goals of the master plan.

HOAN states - “Code Refresh—building on the city’s nationally award-winning master plan, Richmond 300—would make it easier to build the homes we need, gently adding to the landscape of housing options here while retaining neighborhood character through sensitive design standards and community engagement.”

WRONG! - Many of the proposals in Code Refresh bypass, or directly contradict, key elements of the master plan. By making many of the zoning options “by right”, there are no guard rails in place to retain neighborhood character or design. There is no opportunity for community engagement as under the current plan where special use permits require notice and discussion.

Thanks,

Rich Souser

The Author: Rich Souser is a resident of Northside.