Richmond council splits on door-to-door sales licensing; Trinity Solar application fails

Richmond councilors and residents debated whether to approve door-to-door sales licenses Sept. 16 after prolonged public comment and council discussion on safety and community tolerance for solicitors at private homes.

Several residents and councilors said they opposed door‑to‑door solicitation on privacy and safety grounds; others said door‑to‑door approaches are a legitimate sales model and local businesses deserve access. Trinity Solar applied for a one‑year door‑to‑door sales license for employee Divine Alexander. Councilors heard statements from residents, company representatives and council members before a roll-call vote.

When the council voted, the motion to approve the Trinity Solar door‑to‑door sales license failed. Councilor Dan Dinsmore voted yes, several other councilors voted no, and the motion failed 2–2 (recorded votes: Dinsmore yes; Madnick no; Tomitano no; Wilcox yes). Councilors said they expect to bring draft ordinance changes for door‑to‑door and hawker/peddler rules back for a wider policy discussion; several members favored a future opt‑in registry approach allowing residents to consent to visits.

Separately, the council approved a separate one‑year door‑to‑door sales license for applicant Divine Alexander (language in the minutes was mixed); however, the council’s principal action on Trinity’s specific solicitation application did not pass. Council directed staff to include hawker/peddler ordinance changes on a future agenda so the council can consider a systematic approach to registration, enforcement and resident opt‑in/opt‑out mechanisms.