Members of a Richmond City subcommittee and members of the public debated the proposed Cultural Heritage Stewardship Plan on procedural and policy grounds, focusing on whether provisions in the plan could raise housing costs, how ‘‘viewshed’’ protections would be defined and whether archaeological rules would place new burdens on property owners.

Mike Schull, a developer of affordable housing in Richmond who identified himself as a former Virginia secretary of commerce and trade and past chairman of the Better Housing Coalition board, told the committee: “The city of Richmond has a housing crisis. The city needs an additional 18,000 affordable housing units.” He warned the stewardship plan “will inevitably create additional layers of approvals of compliance and of development limitations that will increase the cost of developing real estate projects in Richmond,” citing longer approval timelines and compliance costs.

Why it matters: Committee members said the plan could shape future zoning and regulatory work. Planning staff and public speakers debated whether protections described in the plan — including recommended viewshed, demolition, design-overlay and archaeological measures — would be advisory guidance used in planning reviews or would translate into new ordinance requirements with direct costs for property owners.

Planning staff explained the legal and procedural path any regulatory changes would follow. Kevin, planning staff, said that amending the zoning ordinance would “have to start with planning commission adopting a resolution of intent to amend the zoning ordinance.” He described a multi-step process: staff drafts amendment language, the planning commission holds public engagement and a recommendation, and city council considers and votes on ordinance changes. He added that, for building permits and purely ministerial actions, the master-plan guidance has less force: “If it’s straight up building permits, like, we don’t use the master plan for building permits. So you go right ahead and build what you want according to building permits.”

Speakers raised particular concern about viewshed language in the plan. Several committee members sought a clearer definition of which views would be eligible for protection and how such protections would be created. One committee member asked for proof the city would even have authority under Virginia law to adopt viewshed protections; staff said legal clarity was needed and recommended following the same public process used for establishing old and historic districts when considering any viewshed overlay.

Preservation supporters said the stewardship plan responds to prior public work on preservation and cultural resources. Jim Hill, a McCarver resident and retired city planner involved in earlier drafting, said the previous effort had received “100 letters of support” and attendance of about 70 people at an earlier hearing; he urged the subcommittee to engage the community in accessible, public forums.

Other residents told the committee they support both preservation and housing and urged staff and commissioners to find ways to reconcile those goals. Lexi Cleveland, a resident, said: “I just want to echo some comments that have already been made … I don’t think it’s a 0 sum game between affordable housing and historic preservation.” David Mayer, a Sherwood Park resident, cautioned that simplifying the causes of housing cost increases to regulation alone is “awfully glib,” noting developers tend to build higher-priced units absent other incentives.

Archaeology and potential triggers also drew questions. Staff displayed a federal Section 106–based priority map with “high” (blue) and “moderate” (beige) priority areas used for federal-review contexts; staff said those layers could inform where future archaeological review might be prioritized but emphasized the plan itself does not automatically create regulatory obligations. When asked whether property owners would bear the cost of archaeological studies in sensitive areas, staff said that, under typical zoning regulations, compliance costs fall to property owners unless council provides funding or relief.

Committee members also discussed design overlays, demolition review and the range of regulatory options between ‘‘do what you want’’ (few local design controls) and full old-and-historic-district regulation. Staff described possible intermediate approaches: demolition-delay processes, limited design overlays addressing specific elements (for example, porch or roof guidelines), and full historic-district regulations — all of which would be implemented through ordinance changes after public process and planning-commission and council review.

Decisions and next steps taken at the meeting included scheduling follow-up work and asking staff for additional information rather than adopting any new regulations. The committee requested that staff obtain legal analysis on whether viewshed protections are permissible under Virginia law (including Dillon Rule constraints), clarify fiscal implications for housing and city budgets, and invite the director of housing and community development and the director of finance to the next meeting. Committee members also asked staff to prepare redlined language and a memo for the next session.

Ending: No ordinance or binding regulatory change was adopted at the meeting; the subcommittee framed the stewardship plan as a policy-level guidance document pending legal review, more detailed ordinance drafting and additional public engagement. The committee scheduled a follow-up meeting to seek legal guidance and fiscal analysis and to continue redlining recommended language.