A BILL to amend and reenact § 15.2-2328 of the Code of Virginia, relating to authority of a locality to impose impact fees.
HB536 would amend Virginia Code § 15.2-2328, which governs when localities may use the impact-fee authority created by the article. As written, the bill would limit that authority to areas outside urban transportation service districts and to parcels currently zoned agricultural that are being subdivided for by-right residential development. In effect, it narrows the circumstances under which a locality could impose impact fees on new development.
The bill appears to be a targeted land-use and local-government measure affecting counties, cities, and towns that seek to finance infrastructure costs associated with growth. By tying fee authority to agricultural land being converted to residential use and excluding urban transportation service districts, the bill would alter the scope of local discretion over development-related charges and could affect developers, landowners, and local planning officials.
If enacted, HB536 would change § 15.2-2328 to restrict localities’ ability to impose impact fees, limiting that power to a narrower set of parcels and development situations. This would affect local governments’ revenue tools for funding infrastructure tied to growth, particularly in areas where agricultural land is being subdivided for residential development. It would also affect developers and property owners by potentially reducing fee exposure in some areas while preserving local authority in the specified circumstances.
There is limited recorded discussion or voting history available for HB536, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from committee debate or roll-call votes. The bill’s referral to the Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns and its being left in committee suggest it did not advance, which may indicate either lack of consensus or insufficient support. The subject matter itself is typically associated with a split between local-government fiscal interests and development/property-rights concerns.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between local fiscal authority and limits on development costs. Local governments may favor broader impact-fee authority to help pay for roads, utilities, and other infrastructure needed for new growth, while developers and landowners may oppose fees that increase the cost of residential subdivision, especially on agricultural land. Another likely issue is whether excluding urban transportation service districts and focusing on by-right residential development creates an uneven or overly narrow framework for fee collection.