A BILL to amend and reenact § 55.1-1203 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Title 36 a chapter numbered 13, consisting of a section numbered 36-176, relating to public funding for multifamily residential housing; common household pets; Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.
HB1415 would require multifamily residential housing developments that receive public funds to allow each occupant to keep at least one common household pet in the occupant’s dwelling unit. The bill defines “common household pet” broadly to include dogs, cats, birds, rodents (including rabbits), fish, and turtles, while excluding reptiles other than turtles. It also specifies that the requirement applies only to publicly funded multifamily housing and does not extend to medical and related facilities for the residence and care of the aged.
The bill permits housing developments to maintain health, safety, and welfare rules, but those rules cannot amount to a ban on keeping at least one pet. It further prohibits pet restrictions based on breed or mix of breeds and bars weight limits below 65 pounds per animal. The measure also states that it does not limit existing state or local laws on public health, animal control, animal cruelty, or reasonable accommodations. The bill amends § 55.1-1203 of the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and adds a new chapter in Title 36 governing common household pets in publicly funded multifamily housing.
If enacted, the bill would create a new statutory condition on the use of public funds for multifamily residential housing development in Virginia, requiring pet-friendly occupancy rules as part of the funding terms. It would also add a new chapter to Title 36 and interact with the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act by amending § 55.1-1203, potentially affecting landlord policies, housing development agreements, and tenant rights in subsidized or publicly financed apartment-style housing.
The available legislative history suggests limited support in committee, but not broad consensus. The bill was passed by indefinitely in the House General Laws and Technology Committee on a 14-1 vote, indicating that most members were not prepared to advance it, though one member voted in favor. No committee transcript is provided, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote outcome suggests the proposal was not viewed as ready for enactment in its introduced or substituted form.
The main points of contention are likely the mandate that publicly funded housing allow pets, the prohibition on breed-based restrictions, and the minimum 65-pound weight threshold, all of which limit housing providers’ discretion. Housing developers, landlords, and public funding administrators may view these requirements as burdensome or too rigid, while supporters would likely frame them as tenant-friendly and pet-accessible housing policy. The exclusion of medical and related facilities for the aged and the preservation of public health and animal-control laws suggest the bill attempts to balance pet access with safety and regulatory concerns.