An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 15.2-961.4, relating to land development; solar canopies in surface parking areas.
SB26 authorizes Virginia localities to adopt land development ordinances requiring solar canopies over a portion of large new or expanded surface parking lots serving nonresidential uses. The bill defines a “qualified parking area” as new or expanded contiguous surface parking lots with 100 or more off-street spaces, and a “solar canopy” as an open-sided structure above the parking area containing solar photovoltaic panels. A locality may require installation of solar canopies over up to 50 percent of a qualified parking area, but only if it adopts an ordinance that applies uniformly to all qualified parking areas within the locality.
The ordinance must also satisfy several conditions. It must apply to publicly owned lots as well as private ones, treat covered areas consistently for stormwater purposes, eliminate landscaping and tree canopy requirements for areas under the canopies, exclude mixed-use projects that are at least 50 percent residential, and allow the applicant to choose whether to install one canopy or multiple canopies. The bill also allows the solar canopy to be owned separately from the underlying property and requires localities to provide deviations when strict application would block otherwise allowed development or when solar production would be significantly reduced by site conditions. The applicant or owner may use the electricity generated to offset the parking lot or adjoining building’s consumption, and the canopy must be interconnected under existing Virginia utility rules.
The bill’s impact is to add a new local zoning and land development tool in the Code of Virginia, giving counties, cities, and towns express authority to require solar canopies in qualifying parking developments beginning July 1, 2027. It affects developers of large nonresidential parking lots, local governments adopting land development ordinances, and public entities with qualifying parking areas, while also interacting with stormwater, landscaping, zoning, and utility interconnection requirements.
Overall sentiment appears mixed but ultimately supportive enough for passage. The bill advanced through both chambers and was enacted, though several votes were close, especially in the Senate, suggesting meaningful disagreement over the policy. Support likely centered on expanding solar generation and encouraging dual-use parking infrastructure, while opposition appears to have focused on the added cost, design constraints, and regulatory burden on development.
The main points of contention were how far local governments should be allowed to go in mandating solar canopies and how much flexibility developers should have. The bill’s requirements to apply equally to public and private lots, exempt residential-heavy mixed-use projects, and allow deviations for shading or development feasibility indicate concerns about fairness, practicality, and site-specific constraints. The close committee and floor votes suggest those issues divided lawmakers, even though the final outcome was approval.
SB26 adds § 15.2-961.4 to the Code of Virginia, creating express authority for localities to require solar canopies as a condition of land development approval for qualifying surface parking areas. It affects local land development ordinances, zoning approvals, stormwater treatment, landscaping/tree canopy standards, and utility interconnection for solar installations. The law also permits separation of canopy ownership from the underlying real property and allows the electricity generated to offset on-site energy use.
The bill’s overall sentiment appears cautiously favorable, with enough support to pass both chambers and become law, but with notable resistance reflected in several close votes. The pattern suggests broad agreement on encouraging solar energy and innovative parking-lot design, tempered by concerns about cost, feasibility, and the extent of local regulatory authority. The final enactment indicates proponents prevailed, but not without substantial debate.
The main contention was whether localities should be empowered to mandate solar canopies on large parking lots and under what conditions. Opponents likely worried about added development costs, administrative complexity, and burdens on property owners, while supporters emphasized renewable energy generation and efficient use of parking areas. Additional debate centered on exemptions and flexibility, including treatment of mixed-use residential projects, public versus private lots, stormwater accounting, landscaping waivers, and whether developers should be allowed deviations when shading or site conditions reduce solar output.