An Act to amend and reenact § 15.2-901 of the Code of Virginia, relating to removal of clutter; agricultural use exemption; Planning District 19.
HB1316 amends Virginia’s local nuisance and property-maintenance law governing removal of trash, clutter, and overgrown vegetation. The bill keeps the general authority for localities to require property owners to remove clutter and cut grass, weeds, and other foreign growth, and to have the locality do the work and bill the owner if the owner does not comply. It also preserves the existing treatment of liens for unpaid cleanup charges, which are collected like local real estate taxes.
The main change made by the bill is a targeted exemption for localities in Planning District 19. In those localities, ordinances requiring removal of clutter may not apply to land zoned for agricultural use unless the parcel is one acre or less and used for a residential purpose. The bill also clarifies that the agricultural-use exemption for grass and weed cutting in Planning District 19 applies alongside similar exemptions already in place for Planning Districts 6 and 22, while leaving intact the special rules for cemeteries and other land used for interment of human remains.
HB1316 narrows the reach of local clutter-removal ordinances in Planning District 19 by shielding most agriculturally zoned land from those requirements, except for small residential lots. It does not eliminate local enforcement authority generally, but it limits when counties and other localities may order cleanup or assess costs against agricultural property in that region. The bill amends § 15.2-901 of the Code of Virginia, affecting local governments’ code-enforcement powers, agricultural landowners, and property owners subject to nuisance abatement ordinances.
The available record shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or roll-call evidence of opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s enactment, the overall sentiment appears to have been favorable enough for passage, likely reflecting support for a targeted agricultural exemption and local flexibility rather than a broad policy change. The bill’s narrow geographic scope suggests it was treated as a technical or district-specific adjustment rather than a controversial statewide overhaul.
The likely point of contention is the balance between local nuisance enforcement and protection of agricultural land from clutter ordinances. Supporters would favor limiting regulation on farm-zoned property, especially in Planning District 19, while opponents could argue that the exemption weakens local efforts to address blight, safety, and neighborhood appearance. Another possible issue is the bill’s special treatment of one planning district, which creates a locality-specific rule rather than a uniform statewide standard.