As a new year approaches, tensions remain over the aging debate of a bold Roanoke zoning overhaul to try to increase housing options.

As the issue plays out, it could become part of another city council election.

“To have this going on into the next election cycle is not a good look,” said Tony Stavola, a main public face of opposition against some of the approved changes.

Peter Volosin, one of two council members charged with overseeing a compromise, said there’s a reason for that. Council discussed an October to November deadline to find a resolution. But the process is proving to need more time, Volosin said. 

The city administration, just in the past few days, provided a timeline, Volosin said. City staff will talk about proposed changes and seek feedback in January and February with interested groups across Roanoke's four quadrants, Volosin said.

Then, the council would discuss and approve revisions in April, he said. The zoning changes would also include a request made by Councilman Phazhon Nash to make it more difficult for vape stores to open in the city because that will require a zoning change as well, Volosin said.

A substantial zoning revision — viewed by the city as a substantial move to do away with exclusive single-family zoning to create more opportunities for affordable housing — was approved by city council in the fall of 2024. The changes give developers and property owners more options to build multi-family housing, with the thought that an increased inventory will drive down rent and home prices.

Blowback included concerns over impacts on existing single-family neighborhoods.

With community-filed litigation days away from a trial in August, new city council members who campaigned against at least some of the changes last year made a move to try to find a compromise. That was to include meeting with members of the community. 

The litigation was then dropped. 

Then the fall resolution didn’t happen.

Nick Hagen, the other council member leading the compromise effort, said last week that the city’s planning staff is currently working on a proposal. Hagen and Volosin were charged with leading the effort because they have differing views on the matter and backgrounds for it – Hagen is a lawyer, and Volosin is a real estate agent. Hagen favors a repeal of the entire ordinance — and said last week he still does — while Volosin is a general supporter of the changes that were approved. 

Volosin’s council seat, along with those of Evelyn Powers and Vivian Sanchez-Jones, will be on the ballot next year. Volosin said Tuesday he will run for reelection. Powers and Sanchez-Jones have not publicly announced their plans.

Whether the zoning flap will impact the 2026 election in any way remains to be seen. But city officials continue to educate the public on what the new zoning ordinance offers.

Wayne Leftwich, the city’s planning manager, gave a presentation about that at a Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority board meeting last month. After the meeting, when asked about the compromise, he said the planning staff was given some comments and suggestions to potentially incorporate into the ordinance. Leftwich, who didn’t specify potential changes, said he would consider them “tweaks.” The planning department’s recommendations won’t be finished until after the first of the year, he said.

Stavola, who met with Hagen and Volosin this summer to offer suggestions, said the definition of tweaks depends on who is being asked. He said he and others supportive of changes are frustrated that more has not been accomplished at this point.

Bill Hackworth, a former city attorney who was one of the residents who sued, wrote in an email: “As far as what the City is doing to follow up on Council's directive to take another look at the amendments – crickets!”

Revisions championed by Stavola and others include lot size requirements that won’t allow too much development on any given lot, concerns over parking requirements, particularly for larger unit developments, and a process to give neighborhoods a voice even when developments do not require planning commission and city council review.

Asked if litigation could be re-filed, Stavola said, “I don’t think that’s something we’d be looking at as an alternative strategy unless everything falls apart.”

Meanwhile, there are zoning ordinance advocates.

They include Court Rosen, a former city council member who now works in real estate development. 

Rosen said one issue that’s lost in the discussion is the check and balance of design guidelines and building requirements that work in conjunction with the zoning amendments. 

“You can’t just look at the [ordinance] amendments in a silo,” he said, adding that required setbacks of structures from roads and property lines as well as building width designations for second structures on existing lots are examples of preventions that rein in what a developer can do.

Rosen is involved with a South Roanoke development that is a flashpoint for the zoning debate.

Four older homes were torn down and new apartments are planned on the Richelieu Avenue site. The four homes provided nine units of more affordable housing. A new building will offer 22 units at market rents. Proponents say the project is a creative use of the land and increases the city’s housing inventory. Opponents say the project was driven by profit and eliminated units of affordable housing that the city desperately needs.

A site plan is approved for the development, and there is an estimated opening of the spring of 2027, Rosen said.

Adding 13 units beyond what was previously available at the Richelieu site will increase inventory, but that single project is not going to lower rent prices, Rosen said. However, he said he does believe the city could get to a point where rent prices stabilize instead of increasing.

“But we need a lot more residential units built,” he said.