Two public commenters told Richmond City Council the city should enforce existing zoning rules and consider revoking a special-use permit (SUP) ordinance related to a residential project, and they urged greater transparency in the permitting process.

Paige Pruitt said she lives at 614 Arley Street and asked the council to revoke Ordinance 2023-283, which she said derived from an SUP at 615 Maple. "I'm here to ask city council to revoke ordinance 2023 dash 283," Pruitt said, and she told council members the ordinance’s Section 5(e) allows revocation. Pruitt told the council she and neighbors had new evidence from ongoing enforcement and consent processes, including an existing consent order and a second one pending. She alleged multiple violations, including an encroachment of 1.9 feet into the rear setback, an unreported height violation she estimated at 3 to 5 feet, and a fireplace and other encroachments. Pruitt also said survey documents submitted during permitting used planned values rather than measured as-built values and that multiple sealed reports were issued despite the alleged issues.

Thomas Courtney, representing neighborhood interests, asked the council to enforce earlier ordinances from 1976 and 1987 that he said limited a parcel in the Museum District to parking and landscaping for a commercial corner lot (now a school) and opposed construction of what he described as an "industrial warehouse on residential land" associated with the VMFA Foundation. Courtney said the foundation had acquired several residential parcels and that the project had been withheld from formal public notice. He asked the zoning and planning department to review the project and enforce applicable ordinances.

Why it matters: Both speakers framed the issues as long-standing protections of residential character and argued the city should use its code-enforcement and SUP-revocation authority where permittees failed to disclose accurate as-built conditions. Pruitt asked council to enlist the planning commission in the matter; council members responded that some items were in litigation and could not be discussed publicly from the dais.

Council reaction and next steps: The clerk and council noted the items raised in public comment and said staff from the administration and council offices would review submitted materials. The president noted that some items raised are subject to litigation, limiting public discussion from the podium. Pruitt said she expected the matter to return to planning commission review.

Ending: The council did not take any immediate action on the SUP revocation during the meeting; commenters were told staff would review and that litigation limited public deliberation from the council chamber.