9  Zoning in the PlanRVA Region

The PlanRVA region (Figure 9.1) is comprised of 9 local governments, including one independent city, seven counties, and the Town of Ashland.

Figure 9.1: PlanRVA

9.1 Zoning in the Richmond Region

All jurisdictions within the PlanRVA region implement zoning to regulate and restrict housing in their respective communities. At the time of this analysis, the Chesterfield County and the City of Richmond were undergoing comprehensive modernizations of their zoning ordinances.

HousingForward Virginia analyzed over 200 individual base and overlay zoning districts in the region. The analysis that follows excludes overlay districts because they often had no impact on how a residential use was treated. The following analysis involves 203 zoning districts across nine jurisdictions.¹ In order to calculate developable land, Land Use Atlas, Inc. and HousingForward Virginia processed geospatial data to exclude protected lands and rights-of-way from the analysis utilizing PAD-US data, NHDPlus High Res data, and Regrid parcel data.

The results of our analysis are based on the zoning ordinances and zoning maps of each jurisdiction. It is important to note that restrictive covenants, proffered conditions, and parcel-level changes through special exceptions or special use permits also impact the ability to build housing, but they are outside the scope of this analysis.

9.2 Type of Zoning

Like other regions in Virginia, the Richmond region is compromised mainly of primarily residential zoning districts - 91 percent of developable land. Only three percent of land in the region allows for a mix of residential and other uses, while the remaining six percent is dedicated to nonresidential uses like conservation lands or industrial uses. The City of Richmond, unsurprisingly, contains the most Mixed with Residential zoning type (14%), but is followed by New Kent County at 10 percent. New Kent County’s permissiveness around mixed-use zoning is related to its use of Planned Unit Developments, which theoretically allow for a mix of uses, but does not necessarily mean that a mixed-use development will be built.

Figure 9.2: Share of Land Dedicated to Residential and Nonresidential Uses

Richmond’s percentage of land dedicated to a mixed-use zoning is high for the region and also high when compared to jurisdictions in the Hampton Roads region. But the City falls behind jurisdictions in Northern Virginia, where a fifth or more of land allows for a more intense mix of uses. The increasing importance of mixed-use zoning should not be understated. By allowing for more diverse uses close to housing, communities can increase their environmental sustainability and promote more walkable communities. Mixed-use zoning also can have impacts on affordability by reducing a household’s second largest expense after housing - transportation.

9.3 Residential Zoning in the Richmond Region

The dominance of single-family detached housing development has contributed to the lack of mixed-use development in the region. In the region, 60 percent of land is dedicated to only single-family detached housing, the most expensive type of housing. Both Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia have higher percentages of land dedicated to this type of housing - 71 percent and 74 percent, respectively. But it is important to note the key difference in the Richmond region.

Figure 9.3: Percent of Developable Land Where Only Detached Single-Family Housing

It may surprise many that Chesterfield and Charles City County dedicate zero percent of land to single-family detached only housing. But Chesterfield County allows for higher density in districts that are predominantly single-family detached through a public hearing process, and Charles City County allows for the development of 2-family housing by-right in their agricultural and residential districts. The following tables provide a better understanding of this nuance in the larger jurisdictions in the region. While Chesterfield may technically allow for more housing throughout more of its boundaries than other localities, it requires much of that housing to go through a public hearing process. Meanwhile, Henrico and Richmond allow for less housing, but allow more of it by-right.

Figure 9.4: Treatment of Housing Types in the Major Jurisdictions

In other parts of the region, single-family housing (both attached and detached) significantly dominates zoning ordinances. However, places like Charles City, Goochland, and New Kent do allow for 2-family housing - albeit with varying degrees of ease. Meanwhile, multifamily housing (3+) is highly limited in the more rural jurisdictions. The need to protect rural character and the high cost of infrastructure expansion contributes to the limiting of density in areas like these. But the need for diverse housing options is not solely an urban and suburban issue.

Figure 9.5: Treatment of Housing Types in the Surrounding Jurisdictions”

Large minimum lot sizes for single-family housing also contribute to decreasing affordability. By requiring a large amount of land for a single home, builders and developers look to maximize home square footage and other features to meet a return on their investment. In turn, homes on large lots are often outside the range of affordability for many households in the region. The chart below showcases the average of minimum lot sizes for single-family housing in each jurisdiction. The more rural jurisdictions like Hanover have lot sizes well over one acre, with Charles City and Powhatan have lot minimums closer to four acres per single-family home. Lot sizes are often influenced by historical development patterns, but those same patterns have also contributed to the supply crunch we continue to face. By eliminating lot minimums or decreasing them, jurisdictions can open more opportunities for residential development. In rural communities, smaller lot sizes in strategic areas can serve as a way to preserve rural character and open space.

Figure 9.6: Minimum Lot Size Requirements for Single-Family Housing

Our bifurcated building pattern of single-family or apartment housing has also contributed to the housing challenges we see today. The small-scale multifamily housing that we see so often throughout historic neighborhoods, like The Fan, has been zoned out in many communities. This type of development includes duplexes, triplexes, and other building layouts, where multiple households live on a single lot in a single building. This type of housing often provides ‘gentle density’ in predominantly single-family detached neighborhoods and provides opportunities for households that cannot typically afford homeownership an opportunity to live in these neighborhoods. The term Missing Middle has been used to describe this type of housing and has also gained traction across the nation. For the purposes of this analysis, zoning districts that allowed for 2 or more housing units by-right on a single lot were deemed to allow Missing Middle housing. Richmond leads the region in this type of zoning at 18 percent of developable land. Henrico follows but at a significantly lower percentage of three percent and all other jurisdictions are one percent or lower.

Figure 9.7: Percent of developable land allowing for Missing Middle (2-6 units) housing by-right

The region has seen a significant amount of multifamily development in recent years, but the demand for rental housing still remains high. The allowance of multifamily housing by-right contributes substantially to shortening development timelines and decreasing costs, while forcing multifamily housing through a public hearing process further stalls much needed housing or in some cases prohibits it. Richmond exceeds all jurisdictions in the amount of land that is zoned for 4+-family housing by-right. Henrico follows Richmond at nine percent, while all other jurisdictions fall at three percent or below, with some jurisdictions not allowing for any of this housing by-right.

Figure 9.8: Percent of developable land allowing for 4+ family housing by-right

9.4 Accessory Dwelling Units

Accessory dwelling units have been positioned as another tool in the toolbox to address our supply challenges. These backyard housing units are seen as a way for homeowners to house an aging parent or adult child. ADUs can also provide homeowners with a source of additional income, by allowing them to rent the ADU or even the primary dwelling while they live in the ADU. However, local regulations can limit the size and use of ADUs in a way that can make ADU development unfeasible or undesirable.

The National Zoning Atlas utilizes a broad definition of ADUs to include housing that is an accessory use to commercial and other non-residential uses. This means that ADUs in the zoning atlas could include a single housing unit above a retail shop or a home associated with a cemetery. This type of housing is different from the previously referenced ADUs that are associated with a single-family home. The Virginia Zoning Atlas and National Zoning Atlas currently reflects the broader type of ADU.

Important

HousingForward Virginia recently began an ADU ordinance landscape scan in Virginia, focusing on ADUs associated with single-family housing. This analysis takes into account the different treatments of attached and detached ADUs and seeks to quantify the permissiveness of regulations.

ADUs associated with single-family housing have been an increasing policy issue across the nation. And in order to contribute to the policy discussion, HFV has sought to gather additional information on this specific type of ADU. It is the intent of HFV to leverage the zoning atlas to better quantify permissiveness of ADUs across the Commonwealth.

Many jurisdictions in the region treat detached and attached ADUs differently - often with attached ADUs being more permissive. The data visualization below takes advantage of HFV’s scan and the Virginia Zoning Atlas to showcase the amount of land that allows for two different forms of ADUs.

Figure 9.9: Treatment of ADUs by Percent of Developable Land

The table below highlights the different restrictions imposed on ADUs throughout the region. Restrictions vary, but the only jurisdiction in the region that prohibits ADUs is Charles City County. All other jurisdictions allow ADUs to some degree. Goochland County is the only jurisdiction that does not impose a size restriction on ADUs. The City of Richmond, Town of Ashland, Hanover County, and Powhatan County place no restrictions on occupancy of the ADU, while all other jurisdictions prohibit rental of the ADU to some degree.

Table 9.1: ADU Ordinance Summary

Jurisdiction	Treatment	Term	Administration	Form	Approval Process	Size Restrictions	Owner Occupancy	Occupancy Restrictions	Bedroom Restrictions	Parking Requirements
Ashland	Allowed	Accessory apartment	A certificate of use and occupancy and zoning approval shall be obtained at the time of any new lease agreement. A copy of the certificate of use and occupancy and confirmation of building code compliance shall be filed with the zoning administrator by the applicant.	Both	Public hearing	Not to exceed 25% of primary; 1 acre min lot (RR-1); 30,000 SF min lot (R-1); 18,000 min lot (R-2); 16,000 (R-3, R-4)	Yes	-	-	-
Charles City County	Prohibited	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Chesterfield County	Allowed	Accessory dwelling	Deed restriction declaring occupancy restriction	Both	By-right	Not to exceed 40% of primary when detached; Not to exceed 40% of combined gross floor area when attached	Yes	Immediate family, personal guests, or household employees	1	-
Goochland County	Allowed	Detached accessory family housing unit	None	Detached	Public hearing	-	Yes	Immediate family, rental prohibited	-	1/bedroom
Goochland County	Allowed	Attached accessory family housing unit	Circuit Court Clerk affidavit	Attached	By-right in many districts	-	Yes	Immediate family, rental prohibited	-	1/bedroom
Hanover County	Allowed	Accessory housing unit	Special exception term limited to 3 years; renewal required	Both	Public hearing	Not to exceed 25% of primary	Yes	-	2	2
Henrico County	Allowed	Accessory dwelling	None	Both	Public hearing	Not to exceed 800 SF, or 35% of primary	No	Short-term rental prohibited	-	1
New Kent County	Allowed	Accessory single-family residential	None	Both	By-right	Not to exceed 25% of primary, or 450 SF, whichever is greater	Yes	Immediate family	-	Adequate provisions
Powhatan County	Allowed	Accessory dwelling	None	Detached	By-right in limited districts	Not to exceed 35% of gross floor area of primary, or 50% of principle dwelling for detached in A-10	Yes	-	-	1
Powhatan County	Allowed	Accessory apartment	None	Attached	By-right in many districts	Not to exceed 35% of gross floor area of primary	Yes	-	-	1
Richmond City	Allowed	Accessory dwelling	None	Both	By-right	Not to exceed 1/3 of primary or 500 SF, whichever is greater	No	-	-	-

All jurisdictions that allow for ADUs except for New Kent County provide a specific definition of ADUs in their zoning ordinances. While all definitions share some commonalities, none are the exact same.

Table 9.2: ADU Definitions

Jurisdiction	Term	Form	Treatment	Definition
Ashland	Accessory apartment	Both	Allowed	A separate and complete dwelling unit that is incidental to and contained within the same structure as a single-family detached dwelling unit or within an accessory building on the same lot, and which meets all of the conditions and limitations for such use set forth in this chapter.
Charles City County	-	-	Prohibited	-
Chesterfield County	Accessory dwelling	Both	Allowed	A dwelling unit that is subordinate to the principal dwelling located on the same lot as the principal dwelling but is a complete, independent living facility equipped with a kitchen and with provisions for sanitation and sleeping. An accessory dwelling unit may be attached, including as an addition to the principal dwelling, or detached, within a separate building.
Goochland County	Detached accessory family housing unit	Detached	Allowed	A second dwelling unit established in conjunction with, and clearly subordinate to, the principal dwelling unit on a lot, and located in a separate or detached structure.
Goochland County	Attached accessory family housing unit	Attached	Allowed	A second dwelling unit established in conjunction with, and clearly subordinate to, the principal dwelling unit on a lot, and contained within or attached as part of the same structure as the principal dwelling unit.
Hanover County	Accessory housing unit	Both	Allowed	Living quarters, designed for residential occupancy separate from the principal residence and located either in the main building or, if permitted in the zoning district, in an accessory building.
Henrico County	Accessory dwelling	Both	Allowed	An ancillary or secondary living unit to a single-family detached dwelling that has a separate kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping area, existing either within the same structure, or in a detached structure on the same lot, as the primary dwelling unit. For purposes of determining maximum density, an accessory dwelling unit will not count as a dwelling unit.
New Kent County	Accessory single-family residential	Both	Allowed	-
Powhatan County	Accessory dwelling	Detached	Allowed	A secondary dwelling unit established in conjunction with, and clearly subordinate to, the principal dwelling unit on a lot, as a detached structure on the same lot. (See Accessory/Use-Specific Standards, division 2: Standards for Accessory Uses and Structures, of article VII: Use Standards.)
Powhatan County	Accessory apartment	Attached	Allowed	A secondary dwelling unit established in conjunction with, and clearly subordinate to, the principal dwelling unit on a lot, contained within or attached as part of the same structure as the principal dwelling unit on the same lot. (See accessory/use-specific standards, Division 2: Standards for Accessory Uses and Structures, of Article VII: Use Standards.)
Richmond City	Accessory dwelling	Both	Allowed	A dwelling unit located on the same lot of record as another dwelling unit for purposes incident and subordinate to the principal use of such lot. An accessory dwelling unit can be located in the main building or an accessory building.

No jurisdiction in the region is a complete haven for ADUs, as there are restrictions in place within each jurisdiction that may make ADUs difficult to develop or not viable in most cases.

9.5 Zoning for Housing Near Transit

The Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) operates the region’s public transportation system within the City of Richmond and has expanded service into Henrico and Chesterfield counties in recent years. Transit-oriented Development (TOD) was a prominent strategy referenced through the Richmond 300 Master Plan. TOD aims to create compact, mixed-use communities near public transportation. These communities provide residents of all incomes with a multi-modal friendly environment that provides easy access to jobs, services, and other amenities.

Zoning for more dense mixed-use options near public transportation impacts more than low-income households. By reducing dependency on personal vehicles, communities can contribute to environmental sustainability and provide greater economic opportunities for all residents. The map below shows the location of GRTC bus stops and where multifamily housing (4+ units) can be developed without a public hearing.

The map clearly shows that there are opportunities both to expand GRTC service to reach multifamily zoned land, but also opportunities to upzone and diversify areas along transit corridors, especially Route 1 and Midlothian Turnpike.

A quarter mile distance from transit stops is often seen as a comfortable walking distance for most people in the United States.² Where multifamily housing is allowed in the region, there are stark differences in the relationship between multifamily zoned land and transit stop location.

The prevalence of public transit stops in the City of Richmond has undoubtedly contributed to the fact that out of all multifamily zoned land, nearly 80 percent of that land is within a quarter mile of a transit stop. That percentage drops significantly in the counties where GRTC operates. In Henrico, only 32 percent of multifamily zoned land is within a reasonable walking distance of public transportation. In Chesterfield County, that figure is below one percent.

Figure 9.10: Multifamily Zoning w/in a Quarter Mile of GRTC Stops

Strategies for Transit-Oriented Development

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have helped to compile research and information on best practices and successful strategies to support affordable housing development. Their Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) has several articles about transit-oriented development in support of affordable housing.

See below:

Housing Affordability in Transit-Oriented Developments

Making Transit and Affordable Housing Work Together

9.6 Zoning for Equity

The undersupply of housing impacts households regardless of income, but the impact is felt hardest by low- and moderate-income households. And too often, the disparities in income also fall along racial and ethnic lines. In the Richmond region, Black and Hispanic households make a fraction of what their white and Asian counterparts make.

Based on the median household income of different racial and ethnic groups in the Richmond Metropolitan Area, the typical household within each group can largely afford the typical rent in the PlanRVA region ($1,459). But when it comes to homeownership, Black and Hispanic households have a more difficult time affording the median home sales price - even with a 20 percent down payment.

Table 9.3: Income and Affordability by Race in the Region

Race or Ethnicity	Median Household Income	Affordable Rent (30% of Income)	Affordable Homeownership (3% down)	Affordable Homeownership (20% down)
Black	$56,497	$1,412.42	$174,966	$212,146
Asian	$112,105	$2,802.62	$387,480	$469,819
Multiracial	$81,497	$2,037.42	$270,507	$327,989
White, non-Hispanic	$95,671	$2,391.78	$324,675	$393,668
Hispanic or Latino	$66,119	$1,652.98	$211,737	$256,732
a Note: Purchase assumes a 30-Year Fixed Rate Mortage at 6.46%, $250 monthly insurance, and a household pays no more than 28% on housing.

While there are numerous historical and contemporary factors that continue to disadvantage people of color in the housing market, a major factor is also the the lack of diverse and abundant housing supply. With homeownership being a challenge for most households, the rental housing market is surging — further locking in households to renting and locking them out of opportunities to build equity.

And while the region is building more multifamily housing than it ever has, it is still not enough to meet the demand. Most by-right multifamily housing is relegated to the City of Richmond and the median home value in census tracts where the overwhelming majority of the population is white (70 percent or more) is simply out of reach for most Black and Hispanic households. These areas cannot even be easily diversified because zoning does not easily allow for the development of housing that more diverse communities can afford.

The map above shows where multifamily housing (4+ units) is allowed by-right and the location of majority white (70 percent or more) census tracts are and the median home value in those areas. Homeownership is largely out-of-reach for most Black and Hispanic households in those areas. And worse yet, traditional rental opportunities are not permitted there. These factors contribute to continued economic and racial segregation. Less diverse housing options also means less diverse communities.

Researchers from the University of Richmond and Virginia Commonwealth University previously highlighted housing segregation and its connection to educational inequality in “Confronting School and Housing Segregation in the Richmond Region: Can We Learn and Live Together?”. Their research showed that low opportunity neighborhoods are significantly tied to segregated, high poverty schools and that affordable housing opportunities are not in close proximity to high opportunity schools. The map below shows the location of schools wherein the percentage of Black and Latino students is lower than 40 percent. The grey dots represent schools where the percentage of Black and Latino is greater than or equal to 40 percent. The region’s diverse schools are concentrated in the the City of Richmond, eastern Henrico, and Chesterfield along the Route One corridor.

With the Virginia Zoning Atlas we can investigate zoning around schools based on their diversity. While school districts cover many miles, the presence of affordable housing in close proximity to schools can lead to greater opportunity for minority students. But the ability to build affordable housing near high opportunity schools can be stifled by zoning. The chart below looks at zoned, developable land within a one-mile buffer around white majority schools (less than 40 percent Black and Latino) and diverse schools (40 percent or more Black and Latino) in relation to where apartments (4+ unit housing) are allowed.

Figure 9.11: Multifamily (4+) zoning near schools

In the City of Richmond there is a stark difference around zoning and school diversity. Whiter schools in the city have less opportunities for housing diversity around them. Twelve percent of developable land around white majority schools allows for multifamily housing, compared to 21 percent around more diverse schools. In Henrico, there is greater apartment zoning around whiter schools, which are largely located in the western part of the county. This part of the county sees more high-end multifamily development, while the eastern part of the county is much more rural. Hanover County sees a similar relationship as in Henrico, but this is due in part to the location of schools along major corridors like Chamberlayne Road and Mechanicsville Turnpike. The percentage of developable land around Chesterfield County schools that allows for apartments by-right is significantly low - both for its diverse and non-diverse schools. In other parts of the region, the relationship is not as clear due to the lack of diverse schools.

9.7 Conclusions

In comparison to its peers along the I-64/I-95 corridor, the PlanRVA region zones more similarly to the Hampton Roads region than the Northern Virginia region in terms of types of zoning districts. But when looking at the ability to develop different types of housing, more communities in the Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia regions allow for more diverse housing. Undoubtedly, the presence of more independent urban cities in those planning district regions relates to more diverse housing.

However, the influx of new residents to the Richmond region continues to put pressure on the existing housing market, most impacting low- and moderate-income residents already living in the region. With demand only increasing, it will be important for the region - not just one or two individual jurisdictions - to consider how reforming their zoning can contribute to a more vibrant and sustainable region for both new and existing residents.

As noted previously, the Virginia Zoning Atlas provides a new resource for advocates of zoning reform and opportunities to investigate the intersection of housing and its many intersecting issue areas. From transportation to education, the Virginia Zoning Atlas can lead to more informed decisions about zoning and land use policy in the Richmond region and beyond.

---

1. This includes 21 individual Community Unit Plan districts in the City of Richmond. The City of Richmond treats Community Unit Plans (CUPs) as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) that replace the base zoning districts. If a CUP is not implemented, the base zoning district prevails. There were 21 CUPs in the City of Richmond whose status was listed as active.

2. Walker, Jarrett. (2011). “basics: walking distance to transit.” Human Transit.