Counties, cities, and towns; comprehensive plan may include tiny homes or accessory dwelling units.
Summary
SB 932 amends Virginia’s comprehensive planning statute for counties, cities, and towns. The bill directs local planning commissions and governing bodies to ensure that comprehensive plans address a broader set of land-use and infrastructure issues, with specific attention to housing, transportation, and community services. It expressly allows comprehensive plans to designate areas for age-restricted housing, tiny homes, and accessory dwelling units, and it defines both “tiny home” and “accessory dwelling unit” in the statute.
The bill also expands transportation-planning requirements within comprehensive plans. Localities must develop transportation plans that identify infrastructure needs and recommendations, coordinate with state transportation plans and VDOT programs, and submit plans for VDOT review and comment before adoption. The transportation plan must consider how transportation infrastructure aligns with affordable, accessible housing and community services to support community integration of elderly residents and persons with disabilities. In addition, if a locality’s transportation plan designates mass-transit corridors, certain transportation-related funding allocations may be used for utility undergrounding in those corridors if the locality matches the state allocation.
Impact
SB 932 would amend § 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia to broaden the required and permissible contents of local comprehensive plans. It adds explicit references to tiny homes and accessory dwelling units, strengthens housing and transportation planning requirements, and encourages localities to consider broadband infrastructure and resilience. The bill also creates a more formal review relationship with the Virginia Department of Transportation by requiring submission of transportation plans and amendments for review and written comment, and by tying local plans to statewide transportation priorities and programs.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have generally favorable support in the Senate and in local-government review, as reflected by passage out of committee and final Senate passage by a 30-10 vote. The substitute version also advanced through committee with a majority vote, and the Counties, Cities and Towns subcommittee recommended reporting it unanimously. The voting pattern suggests broad acceptance of the bill’s planning framework, though not complete consensus.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on the degree of state involvement in local planning and the policy direction on housing density and land-use flexibility. Supporters appear to favor giving localities clearer authority to plan for tiny homes and accessory dwelling units, while also improving coordination with VDOT and state transportation priorities. Opponents may be concerned about added planning mandates, potential limits on local discretion, and the implications of encouraging denser or alternative housing types. The committee votes, including a 6-5 report from Local Government on an earlier version, indicate that these issues were debated even though the substitute ultimately advanced.