Dragas Expands Grayson Commons Amid Growing Housing Demand in Chesapeake

By Eric S. Cavallo, Editor-in-Chief | Hampton Roads Construction News Network

Chesapeake’s steady population growth continues to place pressure on housing supply, transportation networks, and neighborhood compatibility. Along Elbow Road in the Greenbrier area, those competing priorities are now converging at Grayson Commons, a multi-phase residential project by The Dragas Companies that illustrates how growth in Chesapeake is increasingly shaped not by density alone, but by negotiated conditions and public accountability.

The latest milestone came in mid-2025, when Chesapeake City Council unanimously approved the rezoning of approximately 39 to 40 acres at 1504 Elbow Road—commonly referred to in city materials as the Hugo Property—authorizing up to 137 residential units. Rather than a blanket approval, the action represented a conditional expansion governed by detailed proffers addressing unit limits, site layout, public access, and long-term maintenance responsibilities.

That approval did not occur in isolation. It followed an earlier Grayson Commons entitlement granted in 2022 at the northwest corner of Elbow Road and Centerville Turnpike North. That rezoning encompassed roughly 26 acres and capped development at no more than 268 residential units, combining multifamily residential zoning with limited commercial components and a height exception tied to architectural design. Together, the two rezonings frame Grayson Commons as a coordinated residential district built incrementally through Chesapeake’s entitlement process.

The middle of the story lies in how those entitlements were structured. Chesapeake’s use of conditional rezoning played a central role in shaping the project. The approved proffers restrict development to the submitted concept plan, impose firm unit caps, and require architectural consistency through elevation controls—mechanisms designed to ensure that what is constructed mirrors what was presented during public hearings.

Transportation and public access proved to be among the most closely scrutinized issues. Residents expressed concerns about traffic along Elbow Road, a corridor already experiencing development pressure. In response, the approved conditions require dedication of a 20-foot public access easement and construction of a 10-foot-wide multi-use trail along the roadway, reinforcing the city’s emphasis on frontage improvements and alternative transportation connections as part of new residential growth.

Long-term governance was also embedded directly into the rezoning framework. The proffers mandate the creation of a property owners’ association responsible for maintaining common areas, enforcing architectural standards, and managing recreational amenities. Additional conditions addressing fencing heights and buffering were included to mitigate adjacency concerns where residential lots interface with natural features or neighboring properties.

Beyond zoning and planning, Grayson Commons also reflects the permitting realities of southeastern Chesapeake. Portions of the project area required federal review related to waters and wetlands, introducing another layer of coordination that can influence design refinement and construction sequencing. While such reviews are common in the region, they add complexity that must be navigated alongside local approvals.

From a market perspective, the project is designed to deliver housing types that remain in short supply: townhomes and flats offering lower-maintenance living while maintaining access to green space and proximity to employment centers. The project’s phased approach allows new units to enter the market gradually, aligning supply with absorption rather than overwhelming existing infrastructure.

For Dragas, Grayson Commons represents a continuation of a long-standing development philosophy rooted in neighborhood integration and regulatory discipline. Decades of experience navigating Chesapeake’s zoning framework are evident in the project’s structure, which balances housing delivery with infrastructure constraints and community expectations.

As Chesapeake continues to grow, Grayson Commons offers a clear example of how the city is managing that growth—not by avoiding development, but by shaping it through enforceable conditions, public improvements, and negotiated limits that reflect both market realities and civic priorities.

About HRCNN: The Hampton Roads Construction News Network is an independent regional publication covering construction, infrastructure, zoning, and development across Coastal Virginia, providing clear, fact-driven reporting on the decisions and projects shaping how Hampton Roads grows.

When Affordable Stops Being Affordable: The Hidden Instability in AMI-Based Housing

By HRCNN Hampton Road Construction News Network Staff Writer

Across Virginia and much of the country, “affordable housing” is most often defined by its relationship to a region’s Area Median Income (AMI)—a figure calculated annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to represent the midpoint of income distribution within a given region. Multifamily developments that receive public incentives or comply with local inclusionary zoning ordinances often reserve a certain percentage of units for households earning 30%, 50%, 60%, or 80% of the AMI. In theory, this system ensures that low- and moderate-income families have access to safe, decent housing. But in practice, AMI-based affordability has a time limit—and many renters are discovering just how short that window can be.

Rent levels in these units are typically pegged to HUD’s annual income limits, which are adjusted every year based on inflation, regional wage shifts, and other economic indicators. However, while initial lease-up rents may be within reach for families earning at or below the targeted AMI bracket, the allowable annual rent increases—often tied to fixed percentages or indexed escalators—can outpace actual income growth for tenants. Over time, the same unit that once qualified as “affordable” under the program’s metrics may become a financial strain, especially for tenants whose wages have stagnated or who have experienced job or family disruptions.

This is particularly problematic in high-demand housing markets like Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, and the Richmond metropolitan area, where base AMI levels have been climbing steadily year over year. As AMIs rise, so too do the rent ceilings for so-called affordable units. Yet, not all households see a corresponding increase in earnings. Many renters—especially seniors, single parents, or essential workers—find themselves priced out of the very units that were designed to serve them. This leads to a painful irony: a unit remains technically “affordable” on paper, even as the tenant can no longer afford to stay.

This cycle—entering an affordable unit only to be forced out a few years later—creates what housing advocates call “renter instability.” Families must uproot children from schools, face transportation disruptions, and re-enter increasingly competitive rental markets with fewer viable options. The emotional and financial toll is considerable, particularly for households who moved into these units expecting long-term stability and relief from volatile market-rate housing costs. Instead, they are thrust back into the uncertainty that affordable housing policy was designed to mitigate.

One structural contributor to this problem is the lack of long-term rent stabilization or income recertification requirements in many inclusionary housing agreements. While some localities and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects do require periodic income recertification to ensure tenants still qualify, others do not—allowing landlords to gradually escalate rents while existing tenants bear the burden. This is compounded in jurisdictions where inclusionary zoning is voluntary or poorly enforced, leading to inconsistent outcomes across neighborhoods.

To address this issue, several housing experts and municipal planners are advocating for stronger affordability protections: longer affordability periods (30–50 years), graduated rent caps, and enhanced tenant protections against excessive rent escalations. Others are exploring policy mechanisms such as “rent-to-income” lock-ins, which ensure rent increases remain in sync with a household’s actual earnings rather than the broader AMI curve. These reforms could help preserve the intent of affordable housing programs and promote real housing security for tenants over time.

As Virginia continues to explore inclusionary zoning strategies and expand its multifamily housing stock, it is imperative to recognize that affordability is not static. What a family can afford today may not hold true in five years, especially without policy safeguards in place. To truly serve low- and moderate-income residents, our housing policies must evolve from simply providing affordable units to preserving affordability for the people who need it most—over time, not just at the lease signing.

About HRCNN
The Hampton Roads Construction News Network (HRCNN) is an independent media initiative powered by Earthly Infrastructure®, dedicated to covering the intersections of construction, zoning, housing policy, and infrastructure across Virginia. We aim to elevate important conversations shaping our built environment through thoughtful reporting and community-driven insight. If you have a story idea, policy perspective, or article you’d like to contribute, we welcome submissions at https://earthlyinfrastructure.com/hrcnn-submit-article. Thank you for your continued interest and support as we work to inform, engage, and advocate for a stronger, more equitable future in Virginia’s communities.

Balancing Safety and Infill: Virginia Reexamines Single-Stair Design Standards

By HRCNN Staff Writer
June 24, 2025 | Richmond, VA

In a pivotal meeting that could influence how future housing is built across the Commonwealth, Virginia’s Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) convened a diverse advisory group this week to evaluate a controversial building code proposal: whether to allow four-story multifamily buildings to be constructed with a single interior exit stairway.

The discussion centered on Proposal B1006.3.4-24, which seeks to extend the current allowance for single-exit stair buildings—currently capped at three stories—to include a fourth story, provided that enhanced safety measures are integrated. Supporters argue that the change would unlock dense urban infill development on constrained lots, improve building efficiency, and align Virginia with emerging national model codes. Opponents, however, caution that removing a second stairwell could introduce unacceptable life safety risks, especially in rural areas.

“The goal isn’t to remove stairs for cost savings,” one advisory group member said. “It’s about allowing more flexible, climate-adaptable designs on small sites, with bedrooms on exterior walls and more access to natural light.”

The proposal mirrors recent language approved by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and submitted for consideration in the 2027 International Building Code (IBC) update. However, Virginia is not bound by either framework and must decide whether to adopt an independent provision. The June 24 meeting marked the first formal effort to gather input from fire officials, architects, engineers, local government staff, planners, and other industry stakeholders.

Design and Energy Considerations

Much of the early discussion focused on the design benefits of single-stair buildings. Advocates noted that the reduction of internal corridors allows for more efficient layouts and better cross-ventilation. Architects in the room pointed out that long, deep units with limited window exposure are more energy-intensive and less desirable for residents. They also cited increased flexibility in mechanical system design and solar orientation.

However, some code officials raised concerns about energy-code compliance, especially related to window-to-wall ratios and thermal performance. While most participants agreed that energy issues could be addressed through design choices, others emphasized the need for clear language to prevent misinterpretation during enforcement.

Fire and Life Safety Remain the Primary Concern

As the conversation shifted, fire service professionals voiced strong reservations. Several attendees noted that in jurisdictions with limited fire coverage—particularly in rural parts of Southwest Virginia—response times can exceed 15 minutes, making the presence of a second exit stair critical to resident survival during emergencies.

“New York and Seattle may show low fatality rates in single-exit buildings, but they have response times under four minutes and deep suppression capacity,” one member said. “We can’t design Virginia code around those standards.”

The concern was not only about egress time, but also about operational conflict—residents attempting to evacuate through the same stairwell that fire personnel need to access for response. The discussion included standpipe requirements, positive pressure ventilation, and notification systems. Several participants emphasized the importance of clear mandates for manual fire alarms and early alert systems, especially in buildings that may lack a second means of egress.

Proposed Revisions Emerge

Despite the disagreement, the group found some common ground. By the end of the meeting, there was general consensus on limiting the proposal strictly to interior stairwells, excluding exterior stairs for now due to additional vulnerabilities. The group also discussed amendments requiring stairwell doors to open in the direction of travel, prohibiting direct access from dwelling units into exit stairs, and revising language to align occupancy calculations with gross floor area rather than net area to avoid enforcement conflicts.

Emergency escape and rescue openings (EEROs), which are required in three-story buildings under the current code, were flagged for inclusion in any revised four-story provision. Participants also urged consistency with existing IBC and Virginia Construction Code requirements, including clarifications on notification system connectivity and sprinkler integration.

What’s Next

DHCD staff indicated that they would work with the code change proponent and fire service representatives to draft a revised proposal. A second review and consensus process will be conducted via email, with a virtual meeting to follow if necessary. The revised language is expected to be narrower in scope, more technically precise, and focused on conditions that reflect Virginia’s unique fire service landscape.

As Virginia continues to wrestle with affordability, density, and safety in housing policy, the single-stair proposal offers a case study in balancing innovation with public protection. Whether the compromise will satisfy both sides remains to be seen.

HRCNN will continue to report on code reform efforts and land use policy shaping Virginia’s built environment.
Submit commentary or article ideas at: https://earthlyinfrastructure.com/hrcnn-submit-article