Richmond 300:

Frustrations with the process were exacerbated during the completion of Richmond 300 during 2020 – the most restrictive period of the pandemic quarantines. City Hall was closed. All meetings took place online. The maps were too small to see on the screen.  Many citizens were not fluent with online meetings, and could not participate. Questions were often limited in the virtual meetings, and dialogue was often restricted. Definitions of elements such as “Great Streets” in the plan were not clear and appeared to give the Planning Department unilateral rezoning authority in certain locations. Yet the Planning Department and the Advisory Council finalized Richmond 300 without pausing for the pandemic – as requested – and without incorporating critical requests from the citizens.

In addition, conflicts of interest were rife in the formulation of Richmond 300. The Planning Commission Chair, Rodney Poole, is a developer with vested interests in new zoning; he as been on the Commission for over thirty years; and he was a committee chair on the Advisory Council, even though the Planning Commission (which he chairs) was charged with impartially reviewing and approving Richmond 300. In addition, Rodney Poole and Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Chair Burt Pinnock violated state law by serving on both the Planning Commission and the BZA. (State law limits crossover to one person.) 

For all of these reasons, in November of 2020, multiple neighborhood associations requested that City Council delay the vote on final approval of Richmond 300 until specific amendments could be included. However, Council members replied that they wanted to go ahead and approve Richmond 300, and that amendments should be submitted by January 7, 2021, so they could be reviewed and included. Seven different neighborhood associations worked through the holidays and delivered the amendments on time.

The amendments were then ignored by City Council for a year-and-a-half. In June of 2022, Councilwoman Stephanie Lynch introduced the first of the submitted amendments, one proposed by Oregon Hill, which was simply that the neighborhood zoning designation remain as is. City Council approved the request unanimously, and the amendment was sent to the Planning Commission, chaired by Rodney Poole (and – again – including BZA Chair Burt Pinnock, in violation of state code; he has since resigned). Seventy citizens supported the amendment. No citizens spoke against it – but two people did oppose it: Kevin Vonck and Maritza Pechin, employees of the Planning Department. Without any discussion on the merits of the amendment, or the broad citizen support for it, the Planning Commission voted unanimously against the amendment, with this one comment: “If we entertain this amendment, it will create a slippery slope and other neighborhoods might be encouraged to submit amendments.” This revealing statement undermines the very charge the Planning Commission is supposed to honor: to impartially review planning and zoning issues that come before it. And this same Commission routinely approves SUPs (Special Use Permits that deviate from the zoning code), while it rejects neighborhood appeals out of hand – because other appeals might follow.    

When citizens from multiple neighborhoods requested that City Council override the Planning Commission and include the Oregon Hill amendment, Council members replied with an opinion from the City Attorney stating that the Planning Commission can overrule City Council. Four seasoned Richmond attorneys, four former City Councilmen, and our State House Delegate have stated this opinion is not correct. Yet Council members have declined requests to seek an outside legal opinion and have let the Planning Commission decision stand unchallenged.