Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies special-use requests for Garland Avenue transitional housing and North Avenue outpatient facility
Summary
Richmond City Council voted to deny two special-use ordinances — one to allow adult transitional (locked) housing at 2701 Garland Avenue and one to reestablish an outpatient professional office at 2700 North Avenue — after neighbors raised safety and licensing concerns and city staff said the applications failed to meet City Code standards.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond City Council on April 28 voted unanimously to deny two special-use ordinances that would have changed permitted uses at 2701 Garland Avenue and 2700 North Avenue.
Planning staff told council the applications presented risks to public health, safety and welfare that were not addressed in the materials before the body. Kevin J. Bonk, Planning Director, told the council the ordinances for the two properties had expanded in scope between application and hearing and that staff supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial. “The ordinances as currently presented are not enough to satisfy negative impacts in terms of health, safety, and welfare with regards to Section 3010 50.1 of City Code,” Bonk said.
Neighbors who spoke during public hearings said they were not opposed to rehabilitation or reentry services in general but that these proposals raised distinct concerns. Mariah White, who said she lives in the Second District, said the city is "saturating" some neighborhoods with group homes and that residents had not been given adequate notice or community input. Michelle Brown Harris, a Garland Avenue neighbor, told council the application appeared to be for a for-profit operator, and said licensed professionals — not only certified staff or volunteers — were needed to run the proposed service model.
Supporters of placing rehabilitative services in neighborhoods also spoke. Rachel Heffner, a social worker, said: "People need a safe space to be able to rehabilitate no matter what they are dealing with." She added that cost and licensing structures can lead operators to organize as for-profit entities even when services are intended to be clinical or charitable.
Council members discussed the Planning Commission’s recommendation and neighborhood testimony. Council Member Kenya Gibson, who represents the district that includes Garland Avenue, said residents had done their homework and expressed concerns about the proposal’s operating model and security. “This facility is a locked facility and is very different than the way a halfway house works,” Gibson said. Gibson announced she would vote no and did so when the body took its roll call.
Council then voted on each ordinance. For Ordinance No. 20-25-048 (special use at 2701 Garland Avenue for adult transitional housing), council recorded a unanimous vote against adoption. For Ordinance No. 20-25-055 (special use at 2700 North Avenue for an outpatient professional office building), council again voted not to adopt the ordinance.
The Planning Commission had recommended denial of both papers; planning staff reiterated that, as drafted, the applications had not mitigated the negative impacts cited under City Code Section 3010 50.1. Council did not adopt either ordinance; applicants may revise proposals and return at a later date.
The public hearing record for both items included multiple neighborhood speakers citing proximity to schools and churches, questions about security and whether the properties would operate as “locked” facilities, and concerns that some facilities in the area lacked licensed clinical staff. Proponents emphasized access to transportation and employment as reasons facilities had been located in certain neighborhoods.
Votes at the meeting show the council declined to adopt the two special-use ordinances; the Planning Department’s recommendation and the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial were key parts of the record.
Ending: The council provided no timetable for rehearing. Applicants who wish to pursue revised proposals will need to address the health, safety and welfare concerns that planning staff and neighbors raised and, if appropriate, work with Planning Commission staff before returning to council.
