The Roanoke City Council voted 4-3 on Monday night to delay a highly anticipated decision on rolling back its 2024 single-family zoning overhaul, exposing a deep rift between council member ambitions and municipal capacity.

Roanoke, VA

Author: Roanoke Rambler Staff, Hart Fowler Lead

Published: 2:00 AM EST July 8, 2026

Edited: 2:00 AM EST July 8, 2026

Responding to the council's push for immediate zoning modifications, City Manager Valmarie Turner leveled with the room regarding the planning department's severe staffing constraints. "Staff does not have the capacity right now," Turner warned, noting that forcing the work through immediately would mean "we would essentially have to stop operations in order for that to happen." Councilwoman Sanchez did not support revisions, citing years of planning and public engagement, will reduce many of the housing opportunities created by the 2024 reforms, the focus should be on creating more opportunities for housing for “those that want to call Roanoke home.”

Councilman Nash said it is important to acknowledge when common trends repeat themselves, “There is always a narrative painted that when a group is against something council is for, they always try to diminish that voice and make it seem not representative.” Nash went on to say that he proposes to give the people an opportunity to know the options that Council has.

The procedural gridlock delays a resolution to a conflict that has gripped the city for over two years, heavily driven by resistance in the Old Southwest district. Hagen has consistently maintained that stripping away public hearings in favor of "by-right" development naturally pushes communities to become litigious. That legal reality was actualized by Southwest Roanoke resident Dr. Anthony Stavola, who led a high-profile group of ten local homeowners in suing the city over the lack of individual neighborhood notice and density concerns. Though Stavola’s group later entered a nonsuit as a gesture of good faith to allow council room to negotiate a compromise, the threat of renewed litigation continues to loom large over the city's stalled legislative process.

Roanoke Rambler Lead Reporter Hart Fowler spoke with Councilman Hagen on his stance at the Aurora Studio on June 17, 2026.   

Fowler:

Starting with this looming—not looming, but it seems like yet to be finalized—zoning issue. I know you've been pretty critical of the city's zoning overhaul, which eliminated single-family-only zoning. Are you still calling for a repeal on that, or where are we on that?

Hagen:

I would prefer a repeal. Partially, one of the reasons why is that what the zoning changes did back in 2024 is it made a lot of things "by-right." From a legal perspective, that requires very little oversight on the part of the developer.

While that might sound great to some, a home tends to be the largest investment that most people have. Generally, someone who invested in a single-family neighborhood wants a particular look and feel to it. The issue comes into play when a neighbor, or someone relatively close to the neighborhood, decides they want to redevelop a property and put up apartments. That was one of the major issues I had.

Developers will argue that an administrative review process costs them money, and that is a very real reality. But what I have learned being an attorney is that when you take away people's right to voice their concerns in a community, they tend to get litigious. As an attorney, I can tell you that regardless of the merits of a case, lawyers like to get paid. What I think this mass rezoning will do—and what we have seen already—is spark lawsuits against developers, the city, and others. It doesn't really serve us to trade a relatively cheap administrative process for an expensive legal one, because all of that legal cost ends up being passed on to the buyer. Therefore, it doesn't actually address affordable housing or resolve those issues.

Plus, we already have areas of the city that feature near-infinite density or higher density. Downtown is a perfect example; if you have the land, you have the ability to build as many mixed-use units as you would like. Grandin is another example. We already have areas with high density. The push toward this city-wide overhaul was driven by a belief among some that it would lead to affordability. But we currently have about 3,000 to 4,000 derelict properties in the city, depending on who you ask. Rather than pushing to revamp and restore those existing structures, they pushed to change the entire city's zoning. That has a major impact.

This is a grander, 10,000-foot kind of issue, but there are more practical impacts as well. When you push for increased density, you often see an increase in the price per square foot. We see a lot of this with tiny homes and prefab homes. You might have a relatively smaller home—say, 1,000 or 2,000 square feet—built in an area where homes are typically 3,000 to 4,000 square feet. The smaller home is likely to have a much higher price per square foot by comparison. Where this really comes into play is taxes. Because of the way we assess property value in Virginia, you run the risk that while these smaller homes might be more affordable in the short term, they will cost neighbors more money in the long term. The small home sells for a lower overall price, but the surrounding larger homes see their assessed values skyrocket because the local price per square foot just went up.

Fowler:

When you mention the expectation of ending up in lawyers' hands, was that specifically in reference to the Old Southwest district? They seemed to be one of the most vocal groups here.

Hagen:

They have been very vocal, but because of the nature of mass rezoning, this affects everybody. It's not just Old Southwest. I've had residents raise tangential concerns about parking and narrowing streets in Northwest, Northeast, and Southeast. Because we elect our council members at-large, we have to look at the city as a whole. We cannot isolate the issue and claim this is just something Southwest is doing or worrying about. This impacts the entire city in different ways.

There are really two ways to make money in property development. One is to go into a wealthier, more affluent area and build higher-density housing. Another way is to buy land super cheap and make it a little more expensive. Both happen here. I believe the policy created in 2024 is harmful. What is being proposed right now shifts some of the rules, though it doesn't address all the problems I've discussed. It primarily addresses how dense an area can be based on lot size, which is realistically the most significant change, alongside addressing some parking issues.

Fowler:

Regarding the housing shortage, data shows Roanoke is in need of roughly 3,000 housing units. Mentioning derelict properties is certainly top of mind when it comes to giving new life to places—especially since they don't build them like they used to, and we have some grand architecture here. The difficulty, however, is that it is often more expensive to renovate an old property than it is to build new.

Hagen:

Generally, it varies. There are aspects where renovation ends up being more costly, particularly if you are pursuing a complete historical restoration that requires matching original materials and quality. There are also health issues; historically, construction utilized materials we now know cause cancer, which requires an expensive abatement process. I recognize that it is costly, and I think everybody does.

The difference, though, is that restoration gives new life to buildings that possess unique historical quality. It also preserves neighborhoods and protects our infrastructure. Increased density puts a heavy strain on city infrastructure. While you can argue that density eventually expands the tax base, you have to wait for that development to actually cross the finish line to see the revenue. Right now, we have immediate issues, like getting our recycling collected on time, and a majority of the council recently decided to cut funding toward schools. These infrastructure demands carry real costs, so increasing density right now doesn't make much sense.

Fowler:

That leads right into recent reporting on the difficulty of obtaining building permits in the city, alongside a lack of staff and hiring challenges. With the desire being to renovate these existing places, I imagine it makes it even more difficult to get a housing permit to renovate compared to building new, especially while City Hall is dealing with this permitting staff shortage.

Hagen:

You would think it would be more time-consuming to do the historical renovation, but one of the chief complaints we've seen is a relatively high lead time for brand-new developments as well. It's not really a case of one taking longer than the other; both are simply taking far too long.

I was talking with a developer recently who raised concerns about not wanting to do business in the city anymore because of how long the permitting process takes. We are actively working on it. I will be the first to admit that our turnaround time is currently very high for our region, and we must address it. When developers can go to Roanoke County and get a permit in less than 30 days, that is a legitimate competitive issue for the city. We are working on resolving that specific bottleneck. The City Manager, Ms. Turner, has already started addressing it on her end, and we are monitoring the progress consistently.