We put people, not construction, first.
We are neighbors throughout the City who expect zoning to support Richmond's commitments to the Richmond 300, Climate Equity Action Plan 2030, and SolSmart goals. We want equitable solar access for all to achieve Net-Zero by 2050. Learn more here!
Re: Code Refresh
From Gibson, Kenya J. - City Council Date: Thu 9/17/2026 4:30 PM
To: Drewry, Laura K. - City Attorney Cc: Avula, Danny - Mayor ; Breton, Andrew S. - City Council ;
Jones, Nicole - City Council Office ; Robertson, Ellen F. - City Council
; Lynch, Stephanie A. - City Council Office ; Donald,
Odie - CAO ; Vonck, Kevin J. - PDR ; Warren, RJ A. - Council Chief of
Staff ; Wijesooriya, Lawson - Mayor's Office ; Newbille,
Cynthia I. - City Council ; Jordan, Katherine - City Council
; Abubaker, Sarah M. - City Council ; Trammell, Reva
M. - City Council ; Elliott, Sarandon C. - City Council
Hello,
Thank you for this update. I appreciate your interest in ensuring your team has sufficient time to conduct
a robust review of the Code Refresh ordinance. This code will have a sizable impact on our city far
beyond our terms in office and needs to be thoroughly vetted.
There are several aspects of the proposal and process that I think need to be clarified from a legal
standpoint, so I’m seeking your guidance.
First, how does the Administration consider the Code Refresh to align with the Planning Commission’s
obligation under Va. Code § 15.2-2230 to review the Comprehensive Plan at least once every five years?
Second, given that Council Resolution 2025-R039 expressly directed the Planning Commission to
prepare and adopt a Richmond 300 amendment establishing the Five Points Neighborhood Node as part
of that required Master Plan review, and that amendment is not reflected in Draft 3, what is the legal
basis for adopting a comprehensive zoning rewrite before that Council-directed Master Plan work has
been completed?
Finally, the Planning Department has commissioned studies showing that the increased development
projections driven by Code Refresh significantly overlaps with the City’s combined sewer area. Given the
City’s obligations under the CSO Consent Order, Council Resolution 2022-R025, and planned
development in the Diamond District, what documentation or analysis is legally required to establish
that the Code Refresh will not interfere with the City’s compliance with those obligations?
I recognize a written analysis/opinion on even these specific components may take time to put together,
so let me know when you think this would be feasible.
Kenya Gibson
Councilmember, Richmond City Council Richmond Northside 3rd Voter District
900 E. Broad Street, Suite 305
Richmond, VA 23219
Office: (804) 646-6055
kenya.gibson@rva.gov
Code Refresh intends to expand the number of unrelated people living together in one unit from three to five adults and unlimited children.
Well-documented research shows the negative impacts of crowding. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets the threshold for overcrowding in homes as more than one person per habitable room (excluding functional spaces like the kitchen and any bathrooms).
The threshold for severe overcrowding is 1.5 people per room.
Once a home crosses this threshold, sanitation and air quality suffer, and fire, pathogen, and violence risks accelerate.
Other Virginia and Virginia-adjacent localities handle this exact situation through conditional or special-use-permit pathways rather than a blanket rezoning.
So why is zoning so insistent we need to cram so many people into a unit? Let's look at their data.
The most common rental and housing size in Richmond is 2 bedrooms, which accounts for roughly 38% to 50% of the rental and apartment market. To avoid severe overcrowding (more than 1.5 people per room) three people, today's current zoning, prevents the many ill effects of overcrowding on neighborhoods.
Much larger units could apply for a special use permit (SUP) to allow more people, but overwhelmingly, three unrelated people are fine for the majority of Richmond homes if the most common rental is 2 bedrooms.
Code Refresh's own chart shows how Richmond households have changed. Look closely to compare the 1970s to today:
In the 1970s, you can see the largest percentage of households had 2 people (red).
The 2nd largest category was 1 (blue).
But over a third of the population had 3-6 people in a household (3 as yellow, 4 for green, light grey for 5, dark grey for 6 people).
Today, almost half of our households have ONE person residing in a unit.
Shouldn't we then build more studios?
The average studio in Richmond is 507 sq. ft. If we are going to truly serve a housing need, we should thus keep accessory dwelling units (ADUs) 500 sq. ft. or 1/3 the primary home size to provide housing for our greatest household percentage!
(Further, if zoning wants to truly serve Richmonders, ADUs should not be short-term rentals but leased to locals.)
Almost a third of today's households are 2 people.
*Over* 2/3 of Richmond's total households are made up of 1 -or- 2 people.
Don't believe me? Look at Code Refresh's own chart!
Households with 5 or 6 people are a minuscule percentage of our housing.
Why are we permitting blanket overcrowding if our own data shows it's not needed?
Ask your Councilperson today, and share this chart!
SEE THIS HOUSE?
Larger than many of Richmond homes, this ADU in the Fan is 1,100 sf - SMALLER than what Code Refresh will bring BY RIGHT to yards in every neighborhood!
Looking at the ADU's "yard," you see it is now paved in concrete. That too is legal in Code Refresh, which preserves *only* 30% of a residential lot for soil, when today, in residential lots, 80% is not allowed to be built upon.
Zoning is NOT saving trees or soil when Code Refresh allows 70% of a neighborhood lot to be concrete!!!!
ADUs provide affordable housing opportunity ONLY if they remain small, 1/3 of an existing home floor area or 800 sf, whichever is SMALLER.
The ADU bonus that allows less setbacks on a lot must be removed!
Remove the ADU loophole that allows less setbacks on a lot.
Re-mandate the preservation bonus! Otherwise interior ADUs are disguised RENTmansion duplexes with a huge carbon-heavy tear-down incentive.
Remove the loophole that sublots will allow these ADUs to be sold separately!
DIGEST:This Fan example, above, is UNDER 55% lot coverage (Code Refresh will allow 60%!), AND UNDER 1,200sf. Under Code Refresh, something BIGGER than this would be OF RIGHT, and could be sold separately.
NO VOTE ON CODE REFRESH UNTIL YOUR COUNCIL AMENDMENTS ARE *IN* CODE REFRESH!
The planning commission should not have the final say when Council acts for neighborhoods.
Code Refresh’s lot coverage increases (including lessened setbacks for ADUs) will, by right, allow 12,000 ACRES of Richmond's neighborhood yards to be concreted. (And don't get me started on sublots.)
Only if unbuilt lot percentages are MAINTAINED will Richmond not decimate our natural, critical tree and soil infrastructure where 90% of our city’s tree canopy resides. Look around at your neighborhood and picture the scenarios below if you think that just because duplexes were removed from your neighborhood, you're fine.
Draft 3’s "vegetation space requirements" disguise that today’s R-1 (Single-Family Residential) maximum lot coverage is capped strictly at 20% of the total lot area, leaving 80% for trees, and with lots not less than 20,000 square feet.
The reality, despite the "tree saving" you are being told, is that Draft 3’s RD-A allows 30% concrete (ADUs are by right), and only 30% of a lot for vegetation (versus today’s 80% being yard!!!).
90% of Richmond’s trees are located in residential yards.
Today’s lots have 35-foot front yard setbacks, 10 foot side yard setbacks, a 100' minimum lot width, and a 10' rear yard setback. Code Refresh removes area to no minimum area per lot, and reduces setbacks to 20-foot front setbacks, 9-foot side setbacks, a 9’ rear setback, and lot widths reduced to (RD-A) 90', (RD-B) 50', and (RD-C) 30'! How is that saving trees?!?
Let's do math: Single-family residential neighborhoods are reported as ≈60% of the city's land ≈ 23,800 acres. Today's R-1 residential parcels dictate 80% of a lot must stay unbuilt(20% coverage cap).
Draft 3's RD-A says 30% of a lot must stay unbuilt (a70% coverage cap!!!). Swing in guaranteed open/vegetated share: 80% − 30% = 50 percentage points 23,800 acres × 50% ≈ ~12,000 acres of currently-protected yard space that could by right be converted to hardscape.
Do you think Code Refresh allowing 12,000 ACRES of soil to be concreted in Richmond will not have an impact on your health, heat island, flooding, and trees?
Is allowing 12,000 acres of trees and soil to be concreted helpful or hurtful for our City's health, resiliency, and sustainability?
Further, tree wells and newly planted trees can’t compare to what exists in Richmond’s yards. In year one, 15- 30% of urban trees typically die, and unwatered urban sites lose up to 90% of young trees. How many saplings in tree wells have you seen being watered by residents, Richmond? Only about 50-65% of new trees survive past the critical multi-year establishment phase.
Yet the Office of Sustainability is adding a "tree fund” for developers who feel trees are inconvenient. For over 20 years Yale, carbon offsets/Verra, Society for Conservation Biology and the world has known that 98% of tree funds don’t work! Yet NOW "sustainability professionals" want tree funds? Richmond must do better.
Think Code Refresh isn't hurting your neighborhoods' tree canopy, soil, and solar, in violation of Richmond 300? Look more closely.
These 500 square foot ADUs in Westwood are much smaller than what Code Refresh will allow by right. Code Refresh will allow almost three times this size! ADUs must be tightened to 500sf to ensure they provide affordable housing and must not be taller than adjacent heights, including in RD-C. On narrow 30-foot lots in RD-C, an accessory building can rise up to 20 feet (2 full stories) with only 3-foot side and rear setbacks. A 1,200 sq ft structure is larger than many existing historic starter homes in Richmond, effectively allowing a second full-scale detached residence on single-family lots under the label of an "accessory" structure.
Unbuilt lot percentages = resiliency and sustainable opportunity. Further, require they be soil. Richmond can't be resilent or sustainable without soil, trees, and solar!
Unbuilt Lot Percentages
Why maintain today’s code regarding unbuilt lot percentages? Because to lessen any percentage of unbuilt lot space directly devastates Richmond’s remaining tree canopy and urban resiliency. Zoning knows residential yards are where 90% of the City’s trees reside. Zoning knows permeable soil and plants are critical to combating concrete’s heat islands, flooding, carbonization, and damaged air quality. Zoning knows unbuilt lot percentages affect solar envelope/shadow modeling to ensure all residents can be net-zero.
Richmond's tree canopy and soil have already alarmingly, critically declined; yards are where 90% of our trees reside: we must protect every inch!
Only IF unbuilt lot percentages are MAINTAINED will Richmond not decimate our natural, critical infrastructure!
Tree wells and newly planted trees can’t compare. In year one, 15- 30% of urban trees typically die, and unwatered urban sites lose up to 90% of young trees. How many saplings in tree wells have you seen being watered by residents, Richmond? Only about 50-65% of new trees survive past the critical multi-year establishment phase.
Don't even mention the words "tree fund" to us - for 20 years the world has known that 98% of tree funds don’t work! Yet NOW you want to talk tree funds? C'mon, RVA, do better!
ADUs
Maintaining ADUs to 500sf (and removing the 1/3 of floor area, which residents mistakenly thought meant the footprint, thus remaining in scale, not the total volume!) protects tree canopy, soil, neighbors’ solar opportunities and ensures affordability.
Further, ADUs should be restricted to lots of primary RESIDENCES.
ADUs must conform to existing code’s lot coverage, height limits, and property line setbacks.
Further, ADUs must not overshadow neighbors' solar access to maintain food garden and solar resilience.
The reason ADUs were approved was that council envisioned little granny flats, not entire full-scale homes next to an existing house, sandwiched between neighbors, blocking their solar!
This Fan ADU is less than the size Code Refresh wants to expand to on every lot, by right! Note how it completely fills the yard compared to its neighbor (the ADU belongs to the brick house, second from the end).
In Westwood, Randolph, and across the City neighbors are already horribly impacted by what is allowed before Code Refresh. ADUs must not take solar from existing communities and harm neighbors! Zoning must TIGHTEN, not loosen, ADU requirements!
You see why other localities require the following:
A lease term for the rental of an ADU of 30 consecutive days or longer; NO SHORT TERM RENTALS!
Replacement of a primary dwelling's required parking if the construction of the ADU eliminates such parking;
Dedicated parking for the ADU;
Limits on floor area, lot coverage, and impervious area of an ADU of no less than (i) 350 square feet on lots less than 2,500 square feet and (ii) 500 square feet on lots 2,500 square feet or greater;
Compliance with (i) building codes, including the requirements of the Uniform Statewide Building Code (§ 36-97 et seq.), for an accessory dwelling unit if the ADU is attached or for a dwelling unit if the ADU is detached; (ii) water, sewer, septic, emergency access, flood zone, and stormwater requirements; (iii) historic and architectural districts and corridor protection restrictions; and (iv) Air Installations Compatible Use Zone restrictions;
Owner occupancy of the ADU or the primary dwelling, but not both, only at the time an application is submitted to construct or convert an accessory dwelling unit;
That the ADU shall be no more than 500 feet from the primary dwelling;
No ADUs on a residential lot that has more than one dwelling unit; and
No ADUs sold separately or subdivided from the primary dwelling.
Definition of Family
Richmond's code currently limits occupancy of a dwelling unit to no more than 3 unrelated people. Dwelling units contain sleeping, cooking, and bathrooms for one household. This standard has stood for decades, and courts have repeatedly upheld a municipality's authority to define "family" this way for zoning purposes, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas. Virginia law treats violations seriously enough to carry escalating fines up to $7,500 per ten-day period for uncorrected overcrowding.
Before letting Code Refresh expand the definition of family in blanket zoning, how many properties actually rent with more than 3 unrelated people?
The average Richmonders’ household size is 2.14 people - well under the current cap! If most Richmond households are already quite smaller than three unrelated people, the three-person limit isn't the constraint on housing choice that Code Refresh's supporters suggest it is.
Well-documented research shows the negative impacts of crowding. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets the threshold for overcrowding at homes with more than one person per habitable room, excluding functional spaces like the kitchen and any bathrooms. The threshold for severe overcrowding is 1.5 people per room. Once a home crosses this threshold, sanitation and air quality suffer, and fire, pathogen, and violence risks accelerate.
A blanket change is the wrong tool for a very narrow problem.Other Virginia and Virginia-adjacent localities handle this exact situation through a conditional or special-use-permit pathway rather than a blanket rezoning: Williamsburg allows a single-family home to go from three to four unrelated occupants only with administrative approval, a minimum 2,000 square feet of living space, and additional required parking.
Richmond can continue to allow this via the SUP process: case-by-case, with inspection conditions attached for the specific blocks where the demand is real, instead of loosening the standard citywide with Code Refresh.
Critics say that to allow more roommates by filing a Special Use Permit (SUP) would inundate, absolutely clog City Hall! A simple query can answer that: how many SUPs have been filed in the last 5-20 years to expand a home's occupancy?
The properties where the cap possibly "limits" are concentrated in a few pockets: VCU/the Fan, Church Hill/Union Hill/Fulton/Shockoe Bottom, Barton Heights, Brookland Park/Battery/Highland Park, and parts of Southside, where a mix of larger old houses and student/young-professional demand. You know what DOES shove hordes of multiple couples/crowds into rentals? Illegal Airbnbs. Student party houses.
It's a narrow, geographically specific issue, not a citywide housing-supply crisis that justifies rewriting the standard for every neighborhood in Richmond.
Keep the three-unrelated-persons standard as the default and route the small number of properties that need more capacity through an SUP process, not a citywide rewrite.
Don't "fix" code that's not broken.
Keep our unbuilt lot percentages, definition of family, and reduce the girth of ADUs!
Kale, tomatoes, peppers, okra and herbs grow in a small urban garden.
About the author: Copeland Casati is a native of Richmond who has rented and owned while food gardening in the Fan near Floyd & Meadow, Ginter Park adjacent to Azalea & Chamberlayne, Bellevue's Claremont, and West Grace.
City FOIA records show nearly 14,000 apartments built since 2020, yet rents jumped 62%
We keep hearing the argument that Richmond's current zoning rules make it "almost impossible" to build housing. The city's own records tell a very different story.
13,900 new apartment units (nearly 16,000 housing units total) have been completed or permitted in Richmond since January 1, 2020.
This data, derived from an internal City Planning memo from June 26 (obtained through a FOIA request), shows the current code is clearly not stopping development.
Similarily, HUD data shows median 1-bedroom rents in Richmond went from $932 a month up to over $1,500. That 62% jump ranks Richmond 19th highest in rent growth across the entire country.
Building high volumes of market-rate apartments didn't bring prices down.
What broad upzoning actually does is drive up underlying land values.
That gives commercial developers an incentive to buy up existing, naturally affordable apartments ($1,400–$1,800/mo).
These 800-1,700 square foot homes (now zoned RD-C and RM) are incentivized to tear down and replace with high-density units charging $2,000+ a month.
Richmond loses the affordable housing we already have.
Under state law (Va. Code § 15.2-2284), city zoning updates are required to be based on actual local growth trends and economic data.
City Hall should release full numbers on how much housing can already be built under our existing code before pushing Draft 3 forward.
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.
