An Act to amend and reenact §§ 15.2-2247 and 15.2-2290 of the Code of Virginia, relating to zoning; manufactured housing.
HB655 amends Virginia’s zoning statutes to make it easier for manufactured homes to be placed in agricultural zoning districts and similar districts where site-built housing is already allowed. The bill requires local zoning ordinances to permit manufactured homes in those districts, and in certain cases it specifically protects manufactured homes placed on a permanent foundation, converted to real property, and built within five years of the date of manufacture. It also bars localities from adopting zoning, land-use, or development rules that treat manufactured homes more restrictively than comparable single-family site-built homes in the same zoning district.
The bill preserves local authority to adopt generally applicable uniform standards for residential structures, but those standards cannot be used to exclude manufactured housing that complies with state construction and safety law. It also clarifies that local zoning rules adopted under this section do not override restrictive covenants affecting a lot or parcel, and it preserves local historic preservation powers for historic districts and sites. The amendment to § 15.2-2247 also confirms that local ordinances governing manufactured home parks may apply even where a locality lacks a zoning ordinance, subject to state law prevailing in case of conflict.
HB655 changes state zoning law by expanding and standardizing where manufactured homes must be allowed, especially in agricultural and similar zoning districts where site-built single-family housing is permitted. It limits local discretion to impose more restrictive treatment on manufactured homes than on site-built dwellings, while still allowing localities to enforce neutral development standards and historic preservation regulations. The bill affects local governments, manufactured home owners and buyers, manufactured home park operators, and landowners subject to restrictive covenants.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote detail, so there is no documented debate summary from the provided materials. Based on the enacted text, the bill appears to reflect a policy preference for broader placement rights and reduced local barriers for manufactured housing, while preserving some local regulatory and preservation authority. The absence of recorded opposition in the supplied context suggests the measure was not accompanied by visible controversy in the materials provided, though the statutory changes themselves are likely to have been of interest to local zoning officials and housing advocates.
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s restriction on local zoning and land-use discretion: localities may no longer treat manufactured homes more restrictively than comparable site-built homes in the same zoning district. Local governments may also be concerned about the requirement to permit manufactured homes in agricultural districts and the limits on development standards that could be used to exclude them. On the other hand, the bill expressly preserves historic-district authority and does not override restrictive covenants, which may address concerns from preservation interests and private property owners.