Neighborhood speaker urges Richmond City Council to revoke SUP for 615 Maple, citing alleged encroachments and false paperwork

Paige Pruitt, a Richmond resident, told City Council during the public comment period that she is asking the council to revoke ordinance 20 23-283, the special-use permit (SUP) for 615 Maple, citing what she described as “dramatic new evidence” of zoning and code violations.

Pruitt said the SUP application and ordinance stated the only setback encroachment was 1.9 feet into the rear setback, and that the applicants had promised no other violations. She said subsequent documents and a pending consent order show a “massive height violation of 3 to 5 feet,” encroachment by a fireplace and other discrepancies, and that the surveyor’s as-built used planned values rather than actual measurements. “The disrespect to the public, staff, planning commission and yourselves is unfathomable,” Pruitt said.

Pruitt asked council to use the authority in Section 5(E) of ordinance 20 23-283 to revoke the SUP, identify the violations, and require corrections. She told council that the as-built plan was returned with instructions to remove an encroaching garage and fireplace, and that a consent order is pending.

The remarks occurred during the public comment period; there was no recorded motion or vote on the matter during the meeting. Council leadership acknowledged that some matters raised are the subject of litigation and said administration and staff would review the concerns raised by speakers. No formal action was recorded at the dais to open or reopen the ordinance or SUP on the night’s agenda.

Why it matters: Pruitt framed the request as enforcement of conditions tied to an SUP the city approved; revocation would be a formal administrative step that could require property alterations or other remedies if staff and council pursue it. Pruitt urged involvement of the planning commission and enforcement staff to identify and correct violations.

Clarifying details captured from the meeting: Pruitt cited an alleged 1.9-foot rear setback encroachment that was disclosed on the SUP application, an alleged additional height violation of approximately 3 to 5 feet, an alleged fireplace encroachment, and a sequence in which an as-built was returned twice with instructions to remove encroaching elements. She said a consent order is already in place for a related matter and another consent order is pending; the transcript does not provide the consent-order text or final remedy.

The council did not vote on the request at the meeting; the speaker asked staff and the planning commission to review the claims.