The Land Use, Housing and Transportation (LUHT) Committee of the Richmond City Council met on June 16, 2026, at 4:00 PM (the meeting started at 4:00 PM based on the presentation timing mentioned). The meeting included public comments, approval of minutes, continuances, votes on several ordinances, and two informational presentations. Key actions included forwarding street naming ordinances to full council, continuing two items, and hearing updates on building permitting timelines and the disposition of surplus city properties for affordable housing.
Good afternoon. Uh we will now call the land use housing and transportation committee meeting to order. Final clerk, could you please read the chamber of emergency announcements? Upon activation of the emergency on law signal, all persons should immediately exit the building. Please use the exits to the left or right front of the council chamber or the north or west stairwell outside of the rear doors of the chamber. Do not use elevators or escalators. At the exiting the building, security would direct everyone down 9th Street to the fenced area located between Clay and Lee Streets. Able persons, citizens visually hearing a pair of visitors with exiting the building. Persons wishing to speak during the public comment period and or public hearings are generally allowed three minutes to speak. Well, we just follow the agenda as is, but that's to the public comment, period. Is there anyone here that would like to speak about anything not on today's agenda? Please approach the podium and state your name for the record. Good afternoon, counselors. When last I was before you in February, I talked with you about several big infrastructure projects, smart scale funding requests, et cetera. My concerns continue to be about the process for approving these. That would normally justify such a project. GRTC had said that upzoning under code refresh would significantly increase the population density. However, in a May briefing, GRTC got ready to present a contractor study that said that development on the proposed route had been downgraded, and population wouldn't be as much as projected. This was confirmed yesterday when Mr. Vonk said that the next draft of code refresh would have less upzoning for the Chamberlain Avenue corridor. In addition, GRTC in May said that their uh projections are probably a little high because they plan on continuing the Route One bus route to provide uh disability and elderly uh access to the existing routes. So it looks like the 400 million dollars could be better invested. I'm a supporter of strong public transit. I took the bus here today, but I think that we need to resist, we need to uh do better. And also in February mentioned the uh fall line trail. I may have missed it, but I thought you had said that there was going to be a briefing from BTPW to this committee. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Thomas Courtney. I live adjacent to the VMFA Grove Avenue Storage Facility, and I want to provide a brief update on several unresolved land use issues affecting the surrounding neighborhood. First, there are still pending zoning confirmation letter matters concerning the facility, including the proper zoning classification, the relationship between the approved plan of development, the certificate of zoning compliance, the certificate of occupancy, and the later site plan activity related to the artwork or VMFA dream wall installation. Second, I have submitted a 311 notice regarding landscaping and maintenance deficiencies at the facility, which may indicate that the site has not fully transitioned into compliant operational status. These conditions matter because landscaping, screening, access, and site conditions were part of the representations relied upon during the plan of development and board of zoning appeal process. Third, there have been recent observations and a 311 report concerning apparent operational use of the facility before a temporary or final certificate of occupancy or final zoning sign-off has been publicly confirmed. That includes individuals entering and exiting the facility in a manner consistent with office or storage operations and reports of loading or unloading activity not obviously tied to construction. I'm not asking this committee to make a determination today, but I am asking that the city ensure the record is clear and that no operational use proceeds ahead of any required CO, CZC, zoning final or other applicable administrative processes. Finally, I recently obtained information showing that the Department of General Services lease term for this warehouse facility appears to be materially shorter than the long-term institutional control premise discussed during zoning review by Mr. Davidson and Mr. Vonk and later addressed through the BZA proceedings. My understanding is prior approval discussions referenced long-term commonwealth institutional control as part of the justification for treating the facility as an institutional accessory use. The lease I now I have now seen appears to be a 10-year lease, which may not match that premise. That is one reason the pending ZCL request regarding institutional use remains necessary. I'm asking the committee to ensure these items are followed closely. The pending ZCL matters, CO, CZZ status, landscaping compliance, pre-CO usage reports, and lease term issue are all administrative items that directly affect public transparency, neighborhood reliance, and confidence in the land use process. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Madam Clickless. Oh, is there anyone else here for public comment? I don't have no one I signed up prior to the 10 a.m.