A BILL to amend and reenact § 15.2-2279 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 1 of Chapter 22 of Title 15.2 a section numbered 15.2-2209.4, relating to minimum parking requirements; prohibition on mandates by localities.
HB262 would prohibit Virginia localities from adopting, enforcing, or maintaining ordinances, policies, or requirements that impose minimum parking-space requirements for new or existing buildings, structures, or other uses. In practical terms, the bill removes local authority to require a set number of parking spaces as a condition of development approval, while still allowing developers, property owners, or operators to provide parking voluntarily.
The bill preserves local control over the design, location, and use of parking that is voluntarily provided, and it expressly does not override parking requirements imposed by state or federal law, including Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility standards and electric vehicle charging infrastructure requirements. It also states that any conflicting local rule is void, and that a proposal denied because it does not meet a prohibited parking mandate is deemed approved for all purposes. The bill would take effect on September 1, 2026.
HB262 would amend § 15.2-2279 and add a new § 15.2-2209.4 to Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, limiting local zoning and land-use authority by eliminating minimum parking mandates. Localities would no longer be able to require off-street parking minimums for development approvals, though they could still regulate voluntarily provided parking and continue to enforce parking obligations required by other state or federal laws. The bill would also invalidate conflicting local ordinances and create a strong remedy by treating denied proposals as approved if the denial was based on an impermissible parking requirement.
The available context suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill, as reflected by its incorporation into HB888 (Shin) by the Counties, Cities and Towns committee on a voice vote. No committee transcript or recorded roll-call vote is provided, so there is no detailed public debate in the record here. The bill’s structure and committee action indicate support for reducing local parking mandates and streamlining development rules.
The main point of contention is the balance between statewide limits on parking mandates and local land-use control. Supporters would likely view the bill as reducing regulatory barriers and allowing more flexible development, while local governments may object to losing the ability to require parking tailored to neighborhood conditions, traffic, or congestion concerns. The bill also includes an unusually strong enforcement provision deeming denied proposals approved, which could be controversial because it limits local discretion and may be seen as a significant override of municipal zoning authority.