Richmond board tables decision on non‑owner short‑term rental at 3190 Todsbury Lane

The Richmond City Board of Zoning Appeals on a split vote tabled consideration of BZA18‑2025, a petition to allow a non‑owner occupied short‑term rental at 3190 Todsbury Lane.

The petitioner, Michael Rothwell, a trustee for the Rothwell Family Trust, asked the board for a special exception so the family could rent the home on VRBO when they are not occupying it. Planning staff recommended approval, saying the use is listed as a special exception in the R‑2 (medium intensity single‑family) district and found no health or safety objections from city departments. Opponents cited multiple disturbances and police reports at the property.

The petition matters locally because neighbors say repeated rentals have generated noise and confrontations on a dead‑end residential street, while staff says the unified development ordinance (UDO) and recent local code changes allow non‑owner occupied short‑term rentals as a special exception in the R‑2 district.

Rothwell told the board he and his family live out of state and occupy the property “six, eight, 10 weeks out of the year,” and that when they are away they want to list the house “on VRBO” so visiting family or paying guests can rent it. Planning staff reported the lot is 17,990.28 square feet (0.413 acres), the zoning surrounding the property is R‑2, and the short‑term rental use is listed in the UDO as a use requiring a special exception; staff said the code was revised by Ordinance 2023 to reflect that change.

Several neighbors described more recent problems. Miriam Voorhees, who lives at 3112 Todsbury Lane adjacent to the property, said renters produced “very noisy pets,” used profane language and, during one stay last summer, created noise that kept her from sleeping. “We no longer want to live next to something that is constantly being rented by people we do not know,” Voorhees said. Staff’s written summary noted 10 letters were submitted to the record and that 21 adjacent property owners were notified by mail.

Planning staff told the board it had consulted city departments and utilities and “no health and safety objections were raised.” When a board member asked whether police reports the neighbor referenced would appear in staff’s review, staff replied those reports had not been provided to the department and recommended that any interested party could submit a public‑records request for police reports.

Board members discussed whether written commitments from the owner—such as no‑pets rules, prescreening guests, or a response timeline for complaints—could be attached to an approval. Staff said nuisance rules in the UDO would apply regardless of whether the property is a short‑term rental and observed there are existing processes that can lead to revocation of a variance or special exception for ongoing nuisance conditions.

A motion to approve BZA18‑2025 “based on the finding of fact and no written commitments” failed. The board then voted to table the petition until the next hearing so the item can return with a full board or additional information; the motion to table passed on roll call with affirmative votes recorded for Jeff Cook, Rob Tidrow, Zayred (Sayward) Salazar and Nathan Sheets. The board set the filing deadline for the October hearing as September 17 and discussed scheduling the rehearing for an October 15 meeting date.

Next steps noted during the meeting included the option for any member of the public to request police records for the property and for the petitioner to provide any voluntary written commitments in advance of rehearing. No final special exception was granted or denied at the meeting; the petition remains tabled and will be revisited at the board’s next hearing.