A BILL to amend and reenact § 15.2-2288.6 of the Code of Virginia, relating to agricultural operations; rental of accessory dwellings.
HB509 would expand protections for agricultural operations against local zoning and land-use regulation. The bill keeps in place existing limits on local regulation of agritourism, on-farm sales, food preparation and processing, and other customary farm activities, but it adds a new rule preventing localities from banning the rental of existing accessory residential dwellings on agricultural property for leases of 30 days or more, except in towns. It also preserves local authority where there is a substantial impact on public health, safety, or general welfare.
The bill further limits how local governments may regulate these farm-related activities by restricting special exceptions, administrative permits, and special use permits unless the public-interest threshold is met. It also narrows local noise regulation for these activities, while allowing localities to consider neighboring property owners and residents when outdoor amplified music is involved. The measure expressly states that it does not affect certain alcohol licensing laws, existing agricultural statutes, or local tax authority.
HB509 would amend § 15.2-2288.6 of the Code of Virginia, strengthening statewide preemption over local regulation of agricultural operations and accessory dwellings on farm property. Localities would have less discretion to impose zoning, permitting, and noise restrictions on specified farm activities, and they could not prohibit longer-term rentals of existing accessory residential dwellings on agricultural land outside towns. The bill would primarily affect farmers, agritourism operators, and property owners with accessory dwellings, while preserving local powers tied to health, safety, welfare, and certain other statutory authorities.
The available legislative history shows limited recorded debate, but the bill was continued to the next session in the House Counties, Cities and Towns Committee by voice vote, suggesting no final committee consensus at this stage. The text itself reflects a policy approach generally favorable to agricultural operations and rural land-use flexibility, indicating support for farm diversification and reduced local regulatory barriers. Because there are no transcripts or recorded votes provided, the broader sentiment can only be characterized as procedurally unresolved rather than clearly opposed or endorsed.
The main point of contention is the balance between protecting agricultural businesses and preserving local zoning and nuisance controls. Supporters are likely to favor the bill’s limits on local permitting, noise rules, and bans on accessory-dwelling rentals as a way to support farm income and agritourism. Potential opponents would be local governments and nearby residents concerned about reduced local control, increased traffic or event activity, noise from outdoor amplified music, and the conversion of farm accessory dwellings into rental housing. The bill attempts to address some of these concerns by retaining local authority where there is a substantial impact on health, safety, or general welfare.