| Please visit the Virginia General Assembly's Legislative Information System website. |
Click header to expand each subject area |
2008 Legislative Updates (March 2, 2008)
|
2006 Legislative Updates (February
18, 2006)
The January
2006 legislative updates (152 kb PDF) contains descriptions of each
of the following items.
|
2004 Legislative Updates (January
24, 2004)
The January 2004 legislative updates (60 kb PDF) contains
descriptions of each of the following items.
|
Telecommunication Tower Recent Development (November 3, 2003)
Localities may regulate the height, size and bulk of Cell
Towers
- Click to read more.
It is a fundamental zoning principal that localities may not make zoning decisions based solely on "aesthetic" reasons. "Aesthetic" considerations are essentially those that relate to how a building or structure "looks" in relation to the proposed environment. Aesthetic regulation includes, for example, the prohibition a particular use just because it does not fit in visually with the area, or architectural or design criteria that are imposed solely to make a building better looking. While aesthetic considerations may be a part of a decision that is made, a zoning decision may not be based solely on aesthetic concerns. |
Va Kills Plans to Let Localities Slow Growth (February 9, 2000)
By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, February 9, 2000; Page A01 RICHMOND, Feb. 8-State lawmakers today rejected measures that would have given local officials power to control development by limiting home construction and by charging developers fees to finance new schools and roads needed by growing populations. House and Senate committees rejected the controls despite pleas from burgeoning suburban counties in Northern Virginia and elsewhere, where officials and residents want more authority to control and cope with the pace of growth. Most of the bills were backed by a coalition of 24 high-growth communities from the Tidewater to the Blue Ridge distressed about the march of new houses and the crowded schools and roads that have come with them. "It's very frustrating," said Loudoun Supervisor James G. Burton (I-Mercer), who appeared before the Senate Local Government Committee to plead for the growth measures. "None of them [state lawmakers] have a clue how to get out of this situation." Loudoun, the nation's third-fastest-growing county, is struggling to pay for 23 new schools over six years. Lobbyists for the development, real estate and utility industries as well as business groups turned out to oppose the measures, saying they would hurt the economy and jack up the price of houses, making them unaffordable for people moving to Virginia for jobs. Many lawmakers agreed. "I'm not going to give the local governments a blank check to slam the door on development like this," said Sen. John Watkins (R-Richmond), a member of the Local Government Committee, which rejected several of the growth measures. The bills rejected in Senate and House committees today would have allowed fast-growing counties to limit development if they couldn't afford the debt for schools and other facilities needed for new residents. The panels also spiked legislation that would have allowed communities to charge builders fees for every new house. The House committee also turned away a measure to allow local officials to stop development in areas where roads or schools could not accommodate more cars or students. Lawmakers gave varying reasons for opposing the slow-growth legislation. Defenders of property rights said the measures would undercut them. Others said officials have enough power already to control development but are too timid to use it. "Are you telling me you're going and going and going and you've got no way to slow it down?" Del. Lionell Spruill Sr. (D-Chesapeake) asked supporters of growth control during a subcommittee meeting. "I don't buy that bull." More and more communities across the nation are trying to encourage growth in areas where schools and roads already exist as a way to preserve open space and save taxpayer money. Vice President Gore has made sprawl a centerpiece issue of his presidential campaign. In Maryland, Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D) has been pressing his own "smart growth" plan, which tries to steer development to established areas. Maryland law also allows counties to stop home construction in places where there are not enough schools and other facilities. But Virginia local governments have far less autonomy. Last November, Loudoun County voters elected a slate of eight slow-growth county supervisors, who had hoped the measures rejected today would give them new tools to limit development. Burton said Loudoun officials now will likely try to rewrite land-use plans to sharply reduce the number of houses that can be built--a step that developers have said they would challenge in court. Michael L. Toalson, executive vice president of the Home Builders Association of Virginia, told lawmakers that growth controls would encourage sprawl by driving up the cost of housing and forcing people to move farther away from jobs. "People are going to have to drive as far as they have to drive to acquire that American dream, an affordable home," Toalson said. Virginia historically has favored property rights. And lawmakers repeatedly have refused to give counties and cities clear authority to limit development, despite complaints about crowded schools and roads. Del. Barnie K. Day (D-Patrick), a member of the House panel that rejected the measures, said counties should not complain about development on the one hand and try to lure new companies on the other. He also said his rural district along the North Carolina border could use more development. "What I need ... is about 10 years of uncontrolled, rampant growth," Day said. "I sit up here in amazement. I will believe a county is serious about trying to control growth when they stop trying to attract it." The chairman of the House panel that acted today--the Counties, Cities and Towns Committee--said its members will travel the state, study the issue and look at the legislation again next year. Glen Besa, the Sierra Club's Virginia chapter director, attributed the rejection of the growth controls to the development industry's campaign contributions. Members of the two committees that rejected the growth measures received 15 percent of their $4.4 million in campaign contributions last year from real estate and development interests, according to a Washington Post analysis of campaign finance reports. "What other explanation would there be when it's clear from polling data, when it's clear from any superficial look at the sentiments from the public ... that people would like something done about sprawl?" Besa said. Toalson dismissed that assertion, saying lawmakers rejected the measures because they were bad policy. |