An Act to amend and reenact § 15.2-2303.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to zoning; development agreements in certain localities.
HB787 amends Virginia Code § 15.2-2303.1 to expand and clarify the authority for certain localities to enter into binding development agreements with property owners. The bill applies to localities in Planning District 23 with populations between 245,000 and 350,000 that have adopted a transfer of development rights ordinance, as well as New Kent County, and it allows these agreements for large projects of at least 1,000 acres or projects located in both a transfer-of-development-rights receiving area and a tax increment financing district.
The agreements are intended to support economic growth while remaining consistent with the locality’s comprehensive plan and existing zoning, unless otherwise authorized. They may address a wide range of land-use terms, including permitted uses, density, building height and setbacks, parking, street layout, stormwater controls, and phasing of development. The bill also permits the agreement to include transfers of land, public improvements, money, or other value to the locality for public purposes, so long as those contributions are not required as a condition of obtaining a permitted use or zoning approval.
The bill strengthens and codifies a local government tool that can lock in development terms for up to 15 years, with possible renewals, and it provides vesting protections when a property owner makes required dedications, payments, or public improvements under the agreement. Once vested, later zoning map or zoning text changes generally cannot reduce or restrict the rights granted by the agreement during its term, absent mistake, fraud, or a substantial change in circumstances affecting public health, safety, or welfare. The measure therefore affects local zoning administration, development negotiations, and the expectations of property owners, developers, and localities in the specified jurisdictions.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislative process. It moved through committee and floor votes unanimously in both chambers, and the House agreed to the Senate amendment without recorded opposition. The vote history suggests consensus that the bill is a targeted land-use and economic development measure rather than a contentious statewide zoning overhaul.
No committee transcript is available, and the recorded votes show no formal opposition, so there is little evidence of active dispute in the legislative record provided. Any potential policy tension would likely center on the balance between encouraging large-scale development and preserving local zoning flexibility, because the bill gives developers stronger long-term certainty while limiting later zoning changes for vested projects. However, the available history does not show any identified faction opposing those protections.