Public Comments for: HB900 - Zoning; developmental and use of accessory dwelling units.
NVBCL supports local authority for Virginia Beach, and all localities in Virginia, to regulate land use (zoning) and planning, including local determination for compatible uses of property in each district (e.g. residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural). So we advocate for the General Assembly to give Virginia Beach MORE authority, not less, to enact and enforce local ordinances for land use and planning. We are in direct communication with Citu Councilman Worth Remick, Commissioner of Revenue Phil Kellam, Senator Bill DeSteph, Delegate Anne Tata, and others about our concerns. We oppose this bill because it requires Virginia Beach to allow ADUs in every residential district, without permits or conditions, such as requiring adequate parking, water, or sewer capacity.
(Please see our attached letter for a more readable formatting of our exceptions to this bill.) The North Virginia Beach Civic League (NVBCL) requests the following modifications to resolve our exception to this bills: 1. Modify paragraph B to give localities authority to determine whether and where ADUs shall be a permitted use, whether to require a special use permit for an ADU, and how zoning ordinances, building codes, or other requirements shall apply to ADUs. 2. Modify paragraph C to allow localities to determine the amount of permit fees for ADUs, and to determine the zoning ordinances, building codes, and other requirements that will apply to ADUs. Localities need authority to regulate ADU as appropriate and applicable to the circumstances and needs of their communities. 3. In paragraph D.6, include “local zoning ordinances” in the list of requirements that localities may require. 4. Delete paragraph E.1. Conditions and capacities for parking vary across localities, and across neighborhoods within localities. Localities must retain authority to determine parking requirements that apply to ADUs. 5. Move paragraph E.2 to subsection D, removing it from the list of what localities shall NOT require, and adding it to the list of what localities MAY require. Localities must have authority to determine lot sizes and setbacks as applicable to conditions and needs of localities and neighborhoods. 6. Move paragraph E.4 to subsection D, removing it from the list of what localities shall NOT require, and adding it to the list of what localities MAY require. Localities must retain the authority to manage water, sewer, and septic capacity. Thank you
HB 900 -- STRONGLY OPPOSE any action by the Virginia General Assembly that would: • Compel localities to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), or • Limit the ability of localities to regulate ADUs, • Override local authority for ADU zoning, land use or planning. I support the process in Virginia Beach that is currently underway to draft ADU ordinances, encourage the Virginia General Assembly to give localities MORE authority, not less, to draft and enforce ordinances regarding ADUs.
The North Virginia Beach Civic League (NVBCL), STRONGLY OPPOSES any action by the Virginia General Assembly that would: • Compel localities to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), or • Limit the ability of localities to regulate ADUs, • Override local authority for ADU zoning, land use or planning. We support the process in Virginia Beach that is currently underway to draft ADU ordinances. We encourage the Virginia General Assembly to give localities MORE authority, not less, to draft and enforce ordinances regarding ADUs. Accordingly, NVBCL requests the following modifications to resolve our exceptions to these bills: 1. We request that paragraph B be modified to give localities full authority to determine whether and where ADUs shall be a permitted use, whether to require a special use permit for an ADU, and what zoning ordinances, building codes, or other requirements shall apply to ADUs. 2. We request that paragraph C be modified to allow localities to determine the amount of permit fees for ADUs, and to determine the zoning ordinances, building codes, and other requirements that will apply to ADUs. Localities need authority to regulate ADU as appropriate and applicable to the circumstances and needs of their communities. 3. We request that paragraph D.6 include “local zoning ordinances” in the list of requirements that localities may require. 4. We request that paragraph E.1 be deleted. Conditions and capacities for parking vary across localities, and across neighborhoods within localities. Localities must retain authority to determine parking requirements that apply to ADUs. 5. We request that paragraph E.2 be moved to subsection D, removing it from the list of what localities shall NOT require, and adding it to the list of what localities MAY require. Localities must have authority to determine lot sizes and setbacks as applicable to conditions and needs of localities and neighborhoods. 6. We request that paragraph E.4 be moved to subsection D, removing it from the list of what localities shall NOT require, and adding it to the list of what localities MAY require. Localities must retain the authority to manage water, sewer, and septic capacity. Please see our attached letter to see our commends in a more readable format.
I oppose this bill although the Town of Cape Charles, by ordinance, allows ADUs by-right. We want ADUs to allow for a greater diversification of affordable housing stock. Inserting language in the state code regarding 'no locality shall require compliance with any other requirements except as provided in this section' is a problem. First it is an erosion of local government control. Second it limits the locality to tailor ADU criteria without tailoring requirements to the locality (e.g., min lot size, requirement for separate trash receptacles, or any setback requirements regarding accessory structures to name a few). Allowing an ADU up to 1500 SF is like allowing another SF dwelling unit on the lot. Cape Charles limits ADUs not to exceed 45% of floor area of main building which typically results in a one bedroom sized housing unit. That is fine with us given our housing density. Eliminating dedicated parking is a show-stopper for us. With our historic district lots being 40'x140', we currently have a street parking problem given all our STRs. Our ordinance requires off-street parking. Erosion of a locality's control over ADUs should be enough to kill this bill.