Elizabeth Kostelny joins neighborhood preservationists, sustainability professionals, and planners speaking out on Code Refresh.

Throughout Virginia, and Richmond, communities are exceedingly grateful for the over 34 years of leadership in preservation and revitalization under Elizabeth Kostelny's years of service at Preservation Virginia. Now a citizen, Richmond is deeply appreciative of her words on Code Refresh. 

Sustainability professionals and preservationists must not remain silent on a plan that shows so many proven, negative impacts on Richmond neighbors: removing existing affordable housing, stripping our resiliency, and encouraging displacement and tear-downs.

From: Elizabeth Kostelny
Date: Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 6:33 PM
Subject: Code Refresh 3/Need for Code Refresh 4
To: <RVAMayor@rva.gov>, <kenya.gibson@rva.gov>
CC: <andrew.breton@rva.gov>, <katherine.jordan@rva.gov>, <sarah.abubaker@rva.gov>, <stephanie.lynch@rva.gov>, <ellen.robertson@rva.gov>, <cynthia.newbille@rva.gov>, <reva.trammell@rva.gov>, <richmond300@rva.gov>

Dear Mayor Avula and Councilwoman Gibson,

Thank you for listening to the concerns expressed about Code Refresh at the Third District meeting on 17 September. It is the first meeting that I have attended where residents' viewpoints were respectfully received and real answers provided rather than defensive jargon. No one denies the need to update the zoning, especially where it conflicts with how neighborhoods are currently developed. However, the standardized approach to all neighborhoods will set up the same conflicts for the future.

Ensuring avenues for affordability and a stronger, more sustainable City are goals we share. Many of us who attend these meetings work in the fields of planning, urban design, economics and preservation. We understand the value of thoughtful approaches to density, rezoning and climate resilience and we offer our input because we are dedicated to Richmond. We want a transparent and thoughtful approach.

I feel certain you are hearing from many residents. Drive through any neighborhood. Yard signs calling for a sensible approach to zoning far out number any that support the Code Refresh process as it has been presented. Below are just a few of the concerns.

Code Refresh 3 will:

• Encourage gentrification. Around the country, communities that embraced across the board zoning as Richmond envisions are now regretting the implementation of these plans. The beneficiaries are not those seeking affordable housing. Instead, developers have seized on the open-ended nature to profit. Neighborhoods have been destabilized and people are priced out of homeownership. Nashville was given as a successful example. However, a quick internet search produces the following. Different from Richmond, Nashville is prioritizing retaining the character of its older and historic neighborhoods. Additionally, Nashville residents are asking exactly the same questions about impacts on affordability, parking, traffic, gentrification and the readiness of infrastructure. Interest rates now are at an all time high. Thoughtful approaches to zoning should consider tools to maintain the integrity and distinct attributes of neighborhoods and provide tax relief programs, grants, and other tools to effectively provide affordable options.
  
  
• Penalize those who plan to age in place. Much attention has focused on making Richmond affordable for new homebuyers. Little mention is made about those who have paid taxes for decades and hope to retire here. Code Refresh 3 has the potential to penalize homeowners for NOT building ADUs or sub-dividing their lots by increasing property values to include tax assessments for potential development. For those on fixed incomes, tax rates will become unsustainable. Households are already burdened by the ever increasing high costs on water, sewer, gas and stormwater runoff that the City levies. Historically African American and lower income neighborhoods are most at risk with displacement, as developers seek to profit in these vulnerable communities.
  
  
• Increase risks of flooding, is less environmental sustainability, and creates more heat islands by reducing tree cover and permeable surfaces. While standards may have slightly improved, the overall push to encourage development within existing neighborhoods will cause runoff and less healthy environments. Attention on City maintained parks and greenspaces is a positive development, but only if the City is prepared to care for the spaces. By contrast, Richmonders’ yards are already an asset that support the overall environmental health of neighborhoods with no additional cost to the City. Gardens and trees support healthy populations of frogs, bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, other pollinators and many species of birds. In the shoulder season, dependence on electricity is reduced as these surfaces cool faster than properties filled with hardscapes and additional structures. Incentivizing reduced lot size with more impermeable surfaces and destroying resident cultivated greenspace is counter intuitive to the Richmond 300’s goal of climate resilience.
  
  
• Turn Richmond’s back on the integrity of its historic and older neighborhoods and the tools that have made them affordable. For more than forty years, Richmond led Virginia in utilizing historic tax credits to return abandoned and derelict structures to the tax rolls. Travel writers refer to Richmond’s charm and character because of its unique older neighborhoods. With little focus on historic preservation tools, Code Refresh 3 will incentivize tear downs, fill landfills and increase greenhouse emission. All of these actions will result in the construction of “anywhere USA” architecture, wiping out the authenticity of our neighborhoods. Other Virginia cities have implemented demolition policies. Richmond has always resisted. Code Refresh should have companion policies to protect the unique character of Richmond. Look to professionals like Donavan Rypkema and Place Economics to see how cities embrace historic preservation and thrive.
  
  
• Challenges to traffic and parking are real. The response given by the planning director that the only areas impacted by increased traffic are centered on commercial areas like gas stations etc. is a diversion. Ask anyone who lives in Sherwood Park if traffic and safety concerns have increased since the development of the Canopy at Ginter Park and the answer will be “yes”. Cars traveling Westwood, Brook, Brookland Parkway and the neighboring streets speed, fail to stop at intersections and use bike lanes to pass vehicles creating dangerous conditions. One person has already died on Brookland Parkway. Two cars have been totaled in front of our house. The statement that traffic is not the responsibility of Planning is obfuscation. Who is addressing these impacts before it is too late?

Mr. Vonck stated in the meeting that the City needed to create more housing units to deter the counties from turning agricultural land into housing developments. He touted this action as a climate resilience strategy. This is an obvious false flag. The counties’ expanded development will continue and people will choose to move there as long as the tax rates, housing and utilities are less expensive than the City. There are other questions: how does the glut of new vacant apartments and condos fit into the calculations of housing goals; why allow streets and smaller structures to be cast into shadow by multi-story buildings, why does the City want so many people living in glass boxes and consuming more electricity in a time where rate increases test affordability and consumption eats up resources?

I do not envy your task of developing an effective plan. However, I would suggest that no zoning plan will be effective until there is confidence in the City government. The approach to Code Refresh and the change it will bring has not engendered faith that current residents’ best interests are being supported. More transparency is needed to rebuild trust.

I urge you to listen to those advocating for a common sense approach to zoning. Please don’t label us as elitists or NIMBYs. We want zoning that creates affordable housing–not just for first-time buyers, but for everyone. We want a vibrant City that is sustainable–economically, environmentally and is fiscally responsible. We want everyone's viewpoint to be respectively considered and we want to see those views reflected in Code Refresh version 4.

Thank you for your consideration.

Elizabeth S. Kostelny

About the author: Elizabeth Kostelny is the retired chairman and CEO of Preservation Virginia.