After the Roanoke City planning staff reviewed and recommended a third proposal to the city council for residential zoning changes, the council decided that it’s still not satisfied.
The city council — on a 4-3 vote Monday — agreed to send the issue back to the planning department for the third time in the past two years, after the proposal was unanimously recommended to the council by the planning commission.
Vice Mayor Terry McGuire and council members Nick Hagen, Phazhon Nash and Evelyn Powers formed the majority — the four newest council members who campaigned in 2024 against the sweeping zoning changes now being debated.
City Manager Valmarie Turner and Catherine Gray, director of planning for the city, noted to the council that the planning department — which is severely understaffed — does not have the time or capacity to take a fourth look.
“It would be extremely difficult,” Turner said. “If you want that done immediately, we would essentially have to stop operations in order for that to happen.”
The ordinance before the council on Monday evening included proposed changes to multiple pieces of the city’s zoning code. The council voted, through multiple motions, to break the ordinance into pieces to vote on separately — one of which being residential issues regarding density.
On that matter, the council voted to send it back to the planning staff, along with a proposal put together by a group of citizens who have long been in opposition to higher density housing — a proposal that was not included in the agenda for Monday’s meeting, but was supposedly sent to council members.
Councilman Peter Volosin and Mayor Joe Cobb expressed frustration that the city is at odds on zoning yet again, whereas the majority four council members reiterated the importance of community opinion.
How did we get here?
This all began in 2024, when the city council approved a citywide rezoning package that removed single-family-only neighborhoods and increased housing density allowed throughout the city, in an effort to address a citywide housing crisis and increase housing stock.
After being sued by a group of citizens, the city’s planning staff reviewed that approved plan, made slight changes with another round of community input, and sent it back to the city council — who approved it again later in 2024.
After new council members took office in 2025, multiple asked planning staff to again review changes related to zoning — Councilman Nick Hagen asked staff to review the density concerns that residents expressed once more, and Councilman Phazhon Nash asked staff to study the potential for an ordinance restricting vape shops in the city.
City planning staff, again, held community meetings to garner input, and put together a new plan, which was before the council on May 18 for a meeting that timed out, and was continued to Monday night, along with a public hearing where over a dozen residents spoke, some in favor of added zoning restrictions, some in favor of further restrictions, and some who advocated for the council to go back to their original changes from 2024.
From March 2024 to March 2026, the city saw an additional 45 housing units created as a result of the zoning changes made over these years, Gray said during Monday’s meeting, which is lower than the city’s original estimate in 2024 of an additional 40 units per year.
What was before the council Monday night?
The main residential changes before the council on Monday included: increases to minimum lot area per dwelling unit, reduction of maximum number of units per lot in certain districts, establishing a requirement for one parking space per unit for apartments with three or more units, adding standards for larger apartment buildings, and requiring a property survey for the construction of a new building or accessory dwelling unit.
The package also added restrictions for new uses into the code: vape and tobacco establishments, which would only be allowed in three districts by special exception; data centers, only to be allowed by special exception in planned unit development districts; and inpatient mental health and substance abuse clinics, allowed by special exception in three districts.
The council, on Monday, unanimously approved restrictions related to data centers. The council then voted to remove residential dwelling issues from the ordinance package before approving that whole package without those two pieces, again, unanimously.
The issue of residential density is where the council got stuck.
Why did the council reject the planning commission’s recommendation? And where does the citizen proposal come into play?
During Monday evening’s discussion, several council members noted that they wanted to consider zoning suggestions that a group of citizens put together.
Anthony Stavola, who was one of the residents who sued the city back in 2024, said on Monday evening that the citizen proposal allows for multifamily zoning, but “in scale.” He said the city shouldn’t be allowing for three or four units on smaller lots or corner lots.
Stavola said that the proposal was written by about six people, including a previous head of planning for the city, Evelyn Slone, who stopped working for the city in 2002. Stavola said the proposal was written around March.
The proposed amendments from the citizen group increased restrictions on density to somewhere between the original 2024 amendments and what was in place before this all began, in 2023. Some council members referred to this as a “50-50” compromise that is outlined in a chart that compares changes from the past three years to the citizens’ proposal.
For example, in 2023, in Residential 7 Districts, lots had to be 7,000 square feet per unit. The 2024 changes decreased that minimum to 2,000 square feet per unit. The changes before the council last night would have resulted in no change to this minimum. The citizen group proposal recommends 2,500 square feet per unit.
Other changes in the citizen proposal included decreasing the number of dwellings per lot allowed, increasing the minimum lot area for R-12 districts by 2,000 feet, parking requirements for cornet lots, and a guarantee for public input required for group homes.
After a number of motions made and amendments to motions made, the council voted to send the following items back to the planning commission for review: those related to residential density — including the citizen proposal, potential extra regulations on data centers, and any changes made necessary by amendments to the Code of Virginia that are effective July 1.
Cobb expressed frustration during the meeting, and said that he felt what was in front of the council was already a compromise. Cobb has, since 2024, been in support of the original amendments increasing density.
“It’s better than what we have, in my view, for the health of our city,” said Hagen said of the citizen proposal.
Cobb said that he felt this proposal was representative of a small group of people in the city, rather than the majority of the city’s residents.
Volosin said he felt the council was acting on fear and misinformation coming from one group — who he referenced during the meeting, as many residents in opposition to the amendments sat through the meeting — and that the decision made on the dais was a serious mistake — “When does it end?” he asked during the council’s discussion.
It was unclear Tuesday when the council might revisit a future set of recommendations. The city did not respond Tuesday to a list of questions directed to the planning department.
