Norfolk passed its Resilience Quotient program to great fanfare in 2018, hailed as the country’s most innovative zoning framework for adapting to climate change.
The program includes standards such as building structures higher above ground, installing solar and generator hookups and managing rainwater.
But city officials say the program has not been working as intended, and are proposing to scale some of it back.
That could include making resilience strategies optional for large developments, instead offering rewards to builders who participate.
“The idea being, in exchange for doing something beneficial, we would give you some incentives towards making your project a little bit more efficient for you,” zoning administrator Jeremy Sharp said at an informal Planning Commission meeting earlier this month.
But Mary-Carson Stiff, executive director of the nonprofit Wetlands Watch, which helped push for the 2018 ordinance, said she’s extremely disappointed.
“We are struggling to handle the effects of climate change, both sea level rise inundation as well as increased rainfall. Our systems are not built to accommodate this type of increased water,” Stiff said.
“We, as community members, want to hear about what the city is doing to take more action, not to roll back action that has already been taken.”
City representatives declined an interview, noting the ordinance is still under development.
“Staff is looking at ways to more effectively influence new development within the city to implement more resilient development practices,” spokesperson Kelly Straub said in an email.
“The current regulations have not produced results that demonstrably improved resilience but have been identified as a barrier to development, including housing, in the city.”
The Resilience Quotient process is currently required for all new development and redevelopment projects.
“The City of Norfolk is committed to being the coastal community of the future, with the capacity to endure and quickly recover from climatic and environmental shocks and stresses and bounce back quickly and stronger,” the ordinance reads.
“All proposed development shall be reviewed to identify how it will enhance resilience for both the development specifically and the city generally.”
It outlines a baseline set of standards to offset risk, including a minimum first-floor elevation and requirements to capture water onsite, such as through rain barrels or trees.
The minimum elevation is higher in high-risk flood zones, and the stormwater method must prevent at least the first 1.25 inches during a rain event from leaving the site.
Developers are then required to earn a threshold of points for additional actions to reduce risk and energy use, such as “cool roofs” that reflect sunlight, hurricane-resistant windows, permeable paving in parking lots, electric vehicle chargers and energy-efficient lighting.
“It has this multilayer effect, and developers can kind of pick and choose based off of what they're interested in doing and what makes sense on each site,” Stiff said.
She said everyone agrees the program is not working ideally and needs adjustments. But she believes removing requirements altogether sends the wrong message.
“The most innovative things often aren't going to be perfect because they've never been done before. But when things happen or efforts don't pan out exactly as you hope that they would, you don't just walk away from them completely. You work to refine them. And it just feels like that effort really hasn't been exercised.”
At the Oct. 8 Planning Commission meeting, Sharp said the initial concept would mostly not affect single-family development, except for removing a requirement to provide a solar or generator hookup and eliminating an extra foot of elevation for mechanical and electrical equipment in high-risk flood zones.
For all other development, such as commercial buildings and multifamily housing, the Resilience Quotient would be converted to an optional program “where selected improvements will result in optional incentives.”
Those incentives could include speeding up the review process or reduced parking requirements.
In some cases, state law has caught up and provides similar building standards, “so we didn’t want to feel like we were being punitive and stacking on extra,” planning director Robert Tajan said at the meeting.
Kim Sudderth, chair of the Planning Commission, said she sympathizes with the need to build more, but cautioned against getting rid of guardrails.
“What I don't want to do is trade housing and have more flooding,” she said. “I'm afraid that well, maybe we'll get more housing, but then everyone, their car floods. We have been on the innovative edge of resilience, and I'd hate for us to go back.”
The commission will vote Thursday on whether the city should initiate an amendment to the zoning ordinance, which would still need to be approved later.
