Richmond City Council Work Session on Code Refresh – June 15, 2026

On June 15, 2026, the Richmond City Council held a work session with city administration to discuss the Code Refresh initiative, an update to the city’s 50-year-old zoning ordinance. The session focused on three key unresolved questions: household occupancy limits, zoning of places of worship, and the number of dwelling units allowed per lot. No public comment was taken, and no votes were cast.

Presentation Overview

• Director of Planning and Development Review Kevin J. Bonk presented the purpose and objectives of the Code Refresh, emphasizing alignment with the Richmond 300 Master Plan. He noted that over 5,000 residents had engaged through various channels, and substantial agreement exists on many issues, such as zoning districts, conditional use permits, open space districts, and tree canopy requirements.
• Three open questions were highlighted: (1) how many unrelated persons may constitute a household (current code limits to three; draft two proposed eight; draft three may defer to building code occupancy); (2) how to zone places of worship (draft three proposes using multifamily districts RMA, RMB, RMC, and residential cottage to allow housing on church properties while preserving worship uses); (3) how many dwelling units per lot (draft three proposes a preservation bonus: two principal units plus an ADU only if existing structures are retained; demolition reverts to one principal unit plus ADU).
• Bonk stated that the code is not a silver bullet for affordability but a necessary tool to increase housing supply and reduce special use permit burdens. He noted that RKG market analysis projects 1,800–3,000 new units per year under the new code, with about two-thirds on nodes and corridors.

Council Member Discussion

• Councilmember Gibson questioned whether the code would produce affordable housing, citing RKG analysis showing most market-rate development would be in higher-income areas. She urged scrutiny of displacement data, noted that nearly 25% of homes in the 6th District are owned by LLCs, and warned that private equity fuels the crisis. She requested the city’s annual Richmond 300 progress report and a presentation on the market analysis.
• Councilmember Jones stressed the need for data on how growth affects schools and infrastructure, especially in Southside, where overcrowding already exists. She called for more engagement with Southside communities before draft three and asked about provisions for recovery and transition houses. She reserved her responses for the second round.
• Vice President Jordan commended public engagement and expressed gratitude. She asked about subdividing church properties, affordable housing partner feedback on the two-plus-one option, and parallel initiatives (e.g., cultural heritage plan, design overlays, pre-designed ADUs). She stated her district sees strong opposition to moving from three unrelated persons but suggested four or five as a compromise. She supported the proposed church zoning approach and expressed comfort with two-plus-one on her block but noted not all neighborhoods agree.
• Councilmember Breton (appears via transcript as “Councilman Breton” or “Bretton”) echoed gratitude and raised concerns about encouraging demolitions. He supported the preservation bonus but urged consideration of starter homes and small units. He asked about transitional zoning between neighborhoods, tree canopy protections, and state agency bypass of local zoning. He emphasized the need for data on infrastructure, schools, and traffic safety.
• Councilmember Trammell strongly opposed the code refresh, stating it is not affordable housing but market-rate development that will raise assessments and displace residents. She described losing businesses on Richmond Highway, seniors unable to pay taxes, overcrowded schools, and lack of police and infrastructure. She questioned why the master plan was ignored and argued the code would eliminate the American dream. She demanded more attention to Richmond Highway and more engagement.
• Councilmember Lynch advocated a fact-based approach. She supported keeping occupancy at three unrelated persons, expressed caution on the “Yes in God’s Backyard” state mandate, and favored one principal dwelling unit plus ADU for many neighborhoods to avoid demolition. She urged parallel passage of the cultural heritage plan and a facilities master plan for schools. She noted that Henrico and Chesterfield have already passed similar updates and Richmond is behind.
• Councilmember Robertson highlighted the need for clarity on terminology (e.g., affordable housing, private equity, growth nodes). She challenged the claim that affordable housing is fueled by private equity, asking for data. She called for a clear explanation that single-family neighborhoods will not see multifamily towers, and for defining AMI targets. She recommended that the cultural heritage plan be considered before the final code draft.

Key Outcomes

• No formal decisions or votes were taken. The session was intended for council feedback to inform draft three of the zoning code.
• Director Bonk agreed to provide the Richmond 300 annual report and a presentation on the market analysis to council at a future OD (Organizational Development) meeting.
• Council staff will compile all questions and responses from the session and any follow-up, post them online for public access.
• The administration plans to release draft three in July 2026, after which the Planning Commission will make a recommendation and council will have final authority.
• Additional work sessions with the Planning Commission and Zoning Advisory Committee are scheduled later in the week.
• Several council members requested increased community engagement, especially in the 8th and 9th districts, before draft three is finalized.