The Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police supports B 164. Transferring the hiring and supervisior of the police chief to the Colonial Beach town manager is consistent with the professional management practices of almost all localities in the Commonwealth, and depoliticizes the position of Chief of Police.

Comments Document

Honorable Chair Morefield and Members of the Committee: Enclosed you will find the Town of Colonial Beach's legislative agenda packet, which includes the resolution adopting the legislative agenda and the resolution supporting this charter change request. On behalf of the Town of Colonial Beach, we respectfully request support and passing of HB 164, which provides that the chief of police for the Town of Colonial Beach in Westmoreland County shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the town manager, rather than the town council. The Town Council would like to thank Delegate Ransone for sponsoring this bill. Very Respectfully, India Adams-Jacobs, MPA

The Charter Amendment passed Town Council unanimously. It is our opinion that having the Chief of Police reporting to the Town Manager rather than the Council will provide unity of command and guidance, and will enhance the Chief’s ability to provide for the safety and protection of the people of Colonial Beach.

Environmental Defense Fund strongly supports both HB 520 and HB 364. HB 520 encourages localities to adopt resilience strategies within their comprehensive plans including strategies to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and adapt to changing conditions and hazardous events. Although current provisions in the Virginia Code currently require some Tidewater localities to include guidance from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science to foster the sustainability of shoreline resources; and for Hampton Roads Planning District Commission localities to incorporate strategies to combat sea level rise and recurrent flooding, all localities within Virginia are being impacted by stronger storms and subsequent flood events. Therefore, HB520 proposes that all localities should include resilience strategies in their comprehensive plans. Similarly, Environmental Defense Fund supports HB 364, which adds climate resilience as a subject to be included in regional plans created by planning district commissions. Assessing climate vulnerabilities and opportunities for resilience as a key initial step to developing long-term adaptation strategies that will allow Virginian communities and businesses to thrive in the midst of climate impacts.

I support HB 364, 520, and 1276 and would like to add that LAND USE must be part of our conception of "climate resiliency". Transportation and poor land use account for a lot of climate change, and no serious climate plan can skip over addressing car dependence, sprawl, car culture, lawn culture, and single-use zoning. All this applies to our conception of a "healthy community" too. When more people walk, bike, and take transit to get around, we get healthier communities. Car culture is terrible for public health. I support HB 1346 and would like to add that there needs to be significant emphasis on NATIVE trees and efforts to root out non-native trees, many of which are actively invasive and ecologically harmful. I SUPPORT HB 548.

Support

The Virginia League of Conservation Voters supports HB520 and HB1346. Reasons to SUPPORT HB 520: - HB520 encourages localities to adopt resilience strategies within their comprehensive plans including strategies to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and adapt to changing conditions and hazardous events. - Although current provisions in the Virginia Code currently require some Tidewater localities to include guidance from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science to foster the sustainability of shoreline resources; and for Hampton Roads Planning District Commission localities to incorporate strategies to combat sea level rise and recurrent flooding, all localities within Virginia are being impacted by stronger storms and subsequent flood events. - HB 520 is one of a suite of bills proposed by the Chesapeake Bay Commission intended to integrate statewide flooding and resilience planning and implementation across the Commonwealth in a comprehensive manner. Reasons to SUPPORT HB 1346: 50,000 acres of forest and non-urban tree canopy are converted to other land uses per year in Virginia due to timber harvest, urbanization, agricultural expansion, and other drivers. These bills are the result of the months’ long stakeholder advisory group representing local government, home builders, commercial builders, agriculture, conservation members and Department of Forestry. The legislation prioritizes on-site tree preservation and replanting but affords some opportunities to meet canopy requirements in nearby under-resourced communities—including formerly redlined neighborhoods—to help offset urban heat islands. The bills also allow larger tree canopies to be required when development occurs in areas with existing enhanced tree canopies or when a locality agrees to a somewhat reduced local parking lot, setbacks, and similar requirements.

Environmental Defense Fund strongly supports both HB 520 and HB 364. HB 520 encourages localities to adopt resilience strategies within their comprehensive plans including strategies to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and adapt to changing conditions and hazardous events. Although current provisions in the Virginia Code currently require some Tidewater localities to include guidance from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science to foster the sustainability of shoreline resources; and for Hampton Roads Planning District Commission localities to incorporate strategies to combat sea level rise and recurrent flooding, all localities within Virginia are being impacted by stronger storms and subsequent flood events. Therefore, HB520 proposes that all localities should include resilience strategies in their comprehensive plans. Similarly, Environmental Defense Fund supports HB 364, which adds climate resilience as a subject to be included in regional plans created by planning district commissions. Assessing climate vulnerabilities and opportunities for resilience as a key initial step to developing long-term adaptation strategies that will allow Virginian communities and businesses to thrive in the midst of climate impacts.

I support HB 364, 520, and 1276 and would like to add that LAND USE must be part of our conception of "climate resiliency". Transportation and poor land use account for a lot of climate change, and no serious climate plan can skip over addressing car dependence, sprawl, car culture, lawn culture, and single-use zoning. All this applies to our conception of a "healthy community" too. When more people walk, bike, and take transit to get around, we get healthier communities. Car culture is terrible for public health. I support HB 1346 and would like to add that there needs to be significant emphasis on NATIVE trees and efforts to root out non-native trees, many of which are actively invasive and ecologically harmful. I SUPPORT HB 548.

Comments Document

Virginia Conservation Network fully SUPPORTS HB520. Comments attached.

I am in support of these bills.

Please move to report HB116, HB710, HB1070, HB548, HB1088. Thank you.

I support HB 364, 520, and 1276 and would like to add that LAND USE must be part of our conception of "climate resiliency". Transportation and poor land use account for a lot of climate change, and no serious climate plan can skip over addressing car dependence, sprawl, car culture, lawn culture, and single-use zoning. All this applies to our conception of a "healthy community" too. When more people walk, bike, and take transit to get around, we get healthier communities. Car culture is terrible for public health. I support HB 1346 and would like to add that there needs to be significant emphasis on NATIVE trees and efforts to root out non-native trees, many of which are actively invasive and ecologically harmful. I SUPPORT HB 548.

Dear Honorable Members, Written comments submitted to the committee on 2/2/22 in support of HB 616 remain. Respectfully, Joe Pasanello

Comments Document

Honorable members, Please find attached a pdf of my written comments in support of HB616 and the rationale for adoption. Paul Chamberlin

Honorable members of the House Counties, Cities and Towns Subcommittee: Subcommittee #2: My name is Joseph Pasanello, and I am a member of the Prince William County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), as well as a councilmember in the Town of Haymarket. I am writing today in support of HB 616, which proposes to amend and reenact §15.2-2308, Boards of zoning appeals to be created; membership, organization, etc., paragraph D. of the Code of Virginia. §15.2-2308, A. of the enabling legislation states that “every locality that has enacted or enacts a zoning ordinance pursuant to this chapter or prior enabling laws shall establish a board of zoning appeals…” Establishing a board of zoning appeals is clearly a requirement by which funding is necessarily appropriated to properly establish, support, and maintain BZA operations. It is in the interest of governing bodies to do so to ensure conscientious decisions be rendered that reflect the facts and the law, while ensuring that the contending parties receive fair and impartial hearings as to matters in dispute. The problem is there are times when independent legal counsel is necessary beyond the current structure in place (either supported by the code or by ad hoc arrangements). While §15.2-1542 of the Code of Virginia provides for county, city, or town attorneys to be appointed to offer legal advice to boards, such as BZAs, that may not always be possible especially when the governing body’s attorney is acting as a contending party in a case before the BZA. There are also times when a board member may seek advice as to conflict of interests related to a case but cannot rely on the governing body’s attorney because of the potential for conflicts. In my experience this has happened on occasion. At issue is §15.2-2308, D. of the enabling legislation, specifically the way it is currently written, which may lead to misinterpretation and, in my experience, a lack of support for independent legal counsel. The language as proposed is a more affirmative declaration not subject to interpretation and clarifies the governing body to do what is intended by the enabling legislation, i.e., to fund services, including legal counsel, while placing guardrails as a check on expenditures and maintaining budgetary control. In PWC we manage mostly appeals and variances. Meetings are scheduled monthly but frequently convene less than scheduled. Our need for independent legal counsel is also demonstrably less than larger localities and, in my estimation, does not exceed 24 hours per annum. A budget contingency does not mean all funds will be expended; rather, funds are available only if needed. Having access to independent legal counsel at this level of need could avert costly litigation related to circuit court appeals and the risk should not be ignored by governing bodies. Amending the code by inserting that a governing body shall appropriate necessary funds in support of services and demonstrated needs, such as advice from independent legal counsel, clarifies the responsibility and supports the proper functioning of BZAs in the interest of all parties. Thank you for your consideration.

I support bill 626 and suggest all Delegates and Senators also support. We need transparency . No one should object if they have our best interest.

HB 626 is essential and must be passed. Interest groups are currently able to influence land use decisions by Virginia counties. It is important that land use policies are not determined based upon political action committee (PAC) campaign donations. All factors in making a final decision should be weighed evenly and in the best interests of county residents. Land use decisions often impact all people living in the county. Thus, it is important for land use decisions to not be decided through campaign donations to help county supervisors in their reelection bids. That gives the impression to constituents that the system is rigged against them.

I fully support the provisions of HB626 and feel that given recent and historic circumstances in many Northern Virginia jurisdictions, and particularly Prince William County, the measure is long overdue to address real and perceived corruption in the land use process. For far to long, numerous members of the Board of Supervisors have accepted up to tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions by interested parties prior to the vote on a land use or Comprehensive Plan Application, followed by the acceptance of tens of thousands dollars more following the vote. The issue is one that is by no means partisan as both sides of the aisle are equally guilty. Chairman Stewart raised the practice to an art form in order to fund his many campaigns for higher office and the his successors have simply continued the practice, receiving similar donations from the same interested parties. The initial legislation adopted more than a decade ago was drafted in response to a bribery scandal in Loudoun County, the only differences between the offending parties then and the offending parties now is the increased scale of the contributions and the refusal of recent Commonwealth Attorneys to investigate the process. It is my understanding that an amendment has been submitted to limit the legislation to Planning District 8. Although my personal preference would be for statewide application as a matter of transparency and ethics that should be applied to all local officials, I must note that personal experience suggests the problem is greatest in several Planning District 8 jurisdictions, Similarly, it is my understanding that VACO has reacted negatively to the amendment and has lined up representatives of Planning District 8 to testify in vociferous opposition to the bill. In response, I would simply suggest that they doth protest too much. If a majority of the public views the current circumstances as potentially unethical and the optics poor at best, as is the case in Prince William County, that perception is as damaging as the reality and must be addressed. Lest you believe I am overstating the case, I have served multiple terms in elected and appointed office and been involved in local and regional land use issues in multiple jurisdictions for more than three decades. On more than one occasion, land use applicants have personally confided in me that their local counsel (counsel recommended by the Prince William County Planning staff) advised that such contributions were the coin of the realm and all but "required" to ensure the favorable disposition of their cases. Invariably, when speaking to both elected officials and land use attorneys from outside the County, the near universal perception of the land use process is, and I quote, The Wild, Wild, West. Thus I implore you, as a matter of good governance, to support HB262

Honorable Sub-Committee Members: It was my intent to speak in favor of HB626 tomorrow morning however, circumstances dictate that I will not be able to participate remotely at that hour. That being said, I fully support the provisions of HB626 and feel that given recent and historic circumstances in many Northern Virginia jurisdictions, and particularly Prince William County, the measure is long overdue to address real and perceived corruption in the land use process. For far to long, numerous members of the Board of Supervisors have accepted up to tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions by interested parties prior to the vote on a land use or Comprehensive Plan Application, followed by the acceptance of tens of thousands dollars more following the vote. The issue is one that is by no means partisan as both sides of the aisle are equally guilty. Chairman Stewart raised the practice to an art form in order to fund his many campaigns for higher office and the his successors have simply continued the practice, receiving similar donations from the same interested parties. The initial legislation adopted more than a decade ago was drafted in response to a bribery scandal in Loudoun County, the only differences between the offending parties then and the offending parties now is the increased scale of the contributions and the refusal of recent Commonwealth Attorneys to investigate the process. It is my understanding that an amendment has been submitted to limit the legislation to Planning District 8. Although my personal preference would be for statewide application as a matter of transparency and ethics that should be applied to all local officials, I must note that personal experience suggests the problem is greatest in several Planning District 8 jurisdictions, Similarly, it is my understanding that VACO has reacted negatively to the amendment and has lined up representatives of Planning District 8 to testify in vociferous opposition to the bill. In response, I would simply suggest that they doth protest too much. If a majority of the public views the current circumstances as potentially unethical and the optics poor at best, as is the case in Prince William County, that perception is as damaging as the reality and must be addressed. Lest you believe I am overstating the case, I have served multiple terms in elected and appointed office and been involved in local and regional land use issues in multiple jurisdictions for more than three decades. On more than one occasion, land use applicants have personally confided in me that their local counsel (counsel recommended by the Prince William County Planning staff) advised that such contributions were the coin of the realm and all but "required" to ensure the favorable disposition of their cases. Invariably, when speaking to both elected officials and land use attorneys from outside the County, the near universal perception of the land use process is, and I quote, The Wild, Wild, West. Thus I implore you, as a matter of good governance, to support HB262

Dear Honorable Members of the CC&T Subcommittee #2: HB 626 amends certain land use disclosure requirements applicable to officials in any county with the urban county executive form of government by broadening language to cover "business or financial interest. " This currently applies only to Loudoun County but, if adopted, will apply statewide. The Haymarket Town Council met February 7, 2022 and resolved that "the council hereby supports the provisions of HB 626 and respectfully requests Subcommittee #2 and the House Committee on Counties, Cities, and Towns to approve HB 626. Additionally, the council hereby respectfully requests that the Virginia General Assembly vote in the affirmative and enact HB 626. Respectfully, Joe Pasanello

I am in support of these bills.

Increased energy efficiency will save the taxpayers money for the life of their home. The reduction in energy use is good for the environment, the climate and the homeowner.

I am in support of these bills.

Please move to report HB116, HB710, HB1070, HB548, HB1088. Thank you.

The City of Chesapeake has many concerns about HB1088. Localities should be responsible for establishing the codes and ordinances that reflect the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to establish proper orderly development of the locality. While the courts should have the ability to partition land, it subverts the locality's authority and provides a loophole to developers to allow these parcels to develop with no regard to minimum dimensional requirements. While we support members of our delegation on just about every piece of legislation we are not supportive of this measure.

Please save all of Virginias history, by leaving our monuments intact and historic memorabilia on display. The Commonwealths history should not offend anyone who takes the time to understand it and respect the changes that occurred. For instance Virginias State park history, the Commonwealth’s Roadways or the quaint country town with the history of its namesake and deep rooted genealogy of the people who lived there. The Monuments are no different, they speak of times gone by, appreciated by some, disliked by others. Maybe they are a symbol that change is needed and to remind us to do so, whatever the cause, our history brought us to this day in time. We need to respect each other’s heritage and appreciate how each native Virginian helped to shape all of us. Respectfully, Alan Crawford

This is submitted regarding the destruction and removal of monuments in Virginia. Dear sirs, It is high time to restore the damage the Visigoths, who in the recent bacchanalia of destruction, attempted to erase the history of this great Commonwealth. You are regarded by many of its citizens as a breath of fresh air in this new administration, It is my hope that you take a careful look at undoing the horrendous damage wrought to our monuments . I might remind you of the obvious; nobody ever voted to undertake this vandalism. Do not allow the actions of corrupt persons, acting on their own volition, to destroy our history and our heritage. Respectfully, Maj. Bruce Wallace Raich, USMC (ret)

Comments Document

Virginia Conservation Network is in full SUPPORT of HB1276. Comments attached.

I support HB 364, 520, and 1276 and would like to add that LAND USE must be part of our conception of "climate resiliency". Transportation and poor land use account for a lot of climate change, and no serious climate plan can skip over addressing car dependence, sprawl, car culture, lawn culture, and single-use zoning. All this applies to our conception of a "healthy community" too. When more people walk, bike, and take transit to get around, we get healthier communities. Car culture is terrible for public health. I support HB 1346 and would like to add that there needs to be significant emphasis on NATIVE trees and efforts to root out non-native trees, many of which are actively invasive and ecologically harmful. I SUPPORT HB 548.

Comments Document

Support for HB1325

Comments Document

On behalf of the Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce and our more than 1,000 member businesses and nonprofits we represent, I wish to respectfully request that the members of the Counties Cities and Towns - Subcommittee #2 vote to support HB1325, the amendments to the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing Program (C-PACE). The C-PACE program is an economic development tool that uses private capital to fund environmentally sustainable projects for developers and building owners. Authorized at the state level, 16 Virginia localities have adopted their own C-PACE programs. Nationally, 37 other states utilize PACE as an incentive to attract investments in environmentally sustainable building projects. The energy cost savings that C-PACE provides also makes building projects more affordable and valuable, using private capital, while increasing property values and real property revenues for localities, while attracting business and capital to a community. These amendments to the C-PACE legislation will create greater clarity of the program’s elements and expand eligibility to attract more projects, investments and tax revenues. For these and other reasons, the Loudoun County Chamber respectfully requests your support for HB1325. Sincerely, Tony Howard President & CEO

Virginia Native Plant Society supports this bill.

Please support HB1346 so that localities throughout Virginia have the authority to require the replacement and planting of trees during the development process. The destruction of trees by developers greatly affects the health and quality of life for humans and animals. Preservation of mature trees is vital for climate resilience. We also need to ensure that tree replacements are native species for maximum benefit to our ecosystem.

The Virginia League of Conservation Voters supports HB520 and HB1346. Reasons to SUPPORT HB 520: - HB520 encourages localities to adopt resilience strategies within their comprehensive plans including strategies to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and adapt to changing conditions and hazardous events. - Although current provisions in the Virginia Code currently require some Tidewater localities to include guidance from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science to foster the sustainability of shoreline resources; and for Hampton Roads Planning District Commission localities to incorporate strategies to combat sea level rise and recurrent flooding, all localities within Virginia are being impacted by stronger storms and subsequent flood events. - HB 520 is one of a suite of bills proposed by the Chesapeake Bay Commission intended to integrate statewide flooding and resilience planning and implementation across the Commonwealth in a comprehensive manner. Reasons to SUPPORT HB 1346: 50,000 acres of forest and non-urban tree canopy are converted to other land uses per year in Virginia due to timber harvest, urbanization, agricultural expansion, and other drivers. These bills are the result of the months’ long stakeholder advisory group representing local government, home builders, commercial builders, agriculture, conservation members and Department of Forestry. The legislation prioritizes on-site tree preservation and replanting but affords some opportunities to meet canopy requirements in nearby under-resourced communities—including formerly redlined neighborhoods—to help offset urban heat islands. The bills also allow larger tree canopies to be required when development occurs in areas with existing enhanced tree canopies or when a locality agrees to a somewhat reduced local parking lot, setbacks, and similar requirements.

The City of Newport News supports HB1346. The City supports legislation that provides local governments with greater authority in the reforestation, preservation, and management of urban forests.

The City of Norfolk supports this legislation.

Virginia Loggers Association is a trade association made up of forest harvesting companies, wood products mills, and supporting businesses. VLA opposes HB 1346. VLA is concerned that giving localities such a broad authority of tree canopy and related matters was not the intent of previous legislation and now Code of VA 10.1-1126.1 (see below full text). This Code section prohibits localities from creating ordinances and regulations that limit or restrict legitimate silvicultural activities i.e. forest harvesting and other best management forestry practices necessary for healthy forest stands. Development is a process which can best be determined by professional staff of localities, project managers, and development staff with skills in forestry, water quality protection, and other environmental issues. This is best determined on a case by case basis. General specifications regarding tree canopy, tree replacement, and similar matters are not the answer. § 10.1-1126.1. Silvicultural practices; local government authority limited. A. Forestry, when practiced in accordance with accepted silvicultural best management practices as determined by the State Forester pursuant to § 10.1-1105, constitutes a beneficial and desirable use of the Commonwealth's forest resources. B. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, silvicultural activity, as defined in § 10.1-1181.1, that (i) is conducted in accordance with the silvicultural best management practices developed and enforced by the State Forester pursuant to § 10.1-1105 and (ii) is located on property defined as real estate devoted to forest use under § 58.1-3230 or in a district established pursuant to Chapter 43 (§ 15.2-4300 et seq.) or Chapter 44 (§ 15.2-4400 et seq.) of Title 15.2, shall not be prohibited or unreasonably limited by a local government's use of its police, planning and zoning powers. Local ordinances and regulations shall not require a permit or impose a fee for such silvicultural activity. Local ordinances and regulations pertaining to such silvicultural activity shall be reasonable and necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens residing in the locality, and shall not be in conflict with the purposes of promoting the growth, continuation and beneficial use of the Commonwealth's privately owned forest resources. Prior to the adoption of any ordinance or regulation pertaining to silvicultural activity, a locality may consult with, and request a determination from, the State Forester as to whether the ordinance or regulation conflicts with the purposes of this section. Nothing in this section shall preclude a locality from requiring a review by the zoning administrator, which shall not exceed ten working days, to determine whether a proposed silvicultural activity complies with applicable local zoning requirements. C. The provisions of this section shall apply to the harvesting of timber, provided that the area on which such harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 11 (§ 10.1-1100 et seq.) of Title 10.1 or is converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture use as described in subsection B of § 10.1-1163. The provisions of this section shall not apply to land that has been rezoned or converted at the request of the owner or previous owner from an agricultural or rural to a residential, commercial or industrial zone or use. More....

Comments Document

Virginia Conservation Network is in full SUPPORT of HB1346. Comments attached.

I support HB 364, 520, and 1276 and would like to add that LAND USE must be part of our conception of "climate resiliency". Transportation and poor land use account for a lot of climate change, and no serious climate plan can skip over addressing car dependence, sprawl, car culture, lawn culture, and single-use zoning. All this applies to our conception of a "healthy community" too. When more people walk, bike, and take transit to get around, we get healthier communities. Car culture is terrible for public health. I support HB 1346 and would like to add that there needs to be significant emphasis on NATIVE trees and efforts to root out non-native trees, many of which are actively invasive and ecologically harmful. I SUPPORT HB 548.

Please support HB1346 that gives local jurisdiction authority to require replacement and planting of trees during the development process, including an amendment that will grandfather in localities that adopted ordinances prior to 1990. Trees are a crucial community asset, helping to create a unique sense of place. Trees add value to residential properties and bring in more business in commercial districts. Trees help control stormwater runoff, help reduce energy bills, and cool their surrounding environment.

I support HB 1346. Please support this bill requiring developers to replace trees taken down during building on new or existing lots. Better would be to not allow the trees to be destroyed at all. The loss of trees due to development in Fairfax County is markedly observable in the past decade, leading to a huge loss of diversity of the entire ecosytem. Please pass this bill and look to ways to incentivize for builders to leave mature trees on their lots during development.

Please support HB1346 so that localities have the authority to require the replacement and planting of trees during the development process. The destruction of trees by developers greatly affects the health and quality of life for humans and animals. Localities that are impacted absolutely should have the authority to protect their citizens. Thank you for your consideration.

I support this bill to try to give local jurisdictions the power to require tree replacement and conservation during development. As others have commented, the loss of habitat in one "small" development is catastrophic to the birds, insects, and animals and hastens erosion and runoff. I read the VLA's comments and would like to say that the status quo is NOT working. Without a change, the depredations will continue. Citizens have a right to a clean and healthy environment and should be able to determine how best to preserve trees in their locality. The lack of ANY effort currently is appalling.

Please support this bill requiring developers to replace trees taken down during building on new or existing lots. Tree loss is a scourge that has long lasting impact locally on neighborhoods and cumulatively on our planet. Reducing the tree canopy in an edge forest or existing pocket forest as in common in our urban landscape, weakens the wind break shelter for other trees in the immediate area; making them prone to blow down if they are already weakened by disease, excessive impermeable surfaces nearby, or overzealous pruning. Mature native trees like Oak, Willow, Cherry, Tulip Poplar, Beech, Holly--the list goes on and on, provide ecosystem resources--food for fledgling birds, in the form of caterpillars that grown on the trees from deposited moth eggs. The trees act as heat sinks, cooling areas in summer through transpiration. The trees reduce water run off and help filter ground water first through their umbrella leave canopy all the way down to their extensive root system. The trees use carbon from the atmosphere and build their tissue this way, thereby sucking up our own carbon dioxide pollution and turn it into carbon--wood, and sugar-leaves. Please pass this bill and look to ways to incentivize for builders to leave mature trees on their lots during development. To build more background knowledge, if anyone is interested, please read any of these books by Dr. Doug Tallamy, Bringing Nature Home, Nature's Best Hope or The Nature of Oaks. Respectfully submitted. Thank you for your time.

Our city, state, earth, needs every bit of help it can get! We have massive developments, where builders and developers are just allowed to slaughter and clear cut beautiful old trees. It’s horrific. For example, Brooks place development on sleepy hollow in falls church, slaughtered ten acres of trees! How can that happen or be permitted? Can’t they make lots and all have to have trees around them? Every slaughtered oak hosts over 400 species of moth and butterfly’s. That’s before you talk the birds they support and the flying squirrels. Then they provide the leaf litter that supports thousand more critters - mammals, skinks, salamanders, toads, box turtles and all the birds that feed off those small rodent mammals and all those eggs amongst the leaf litter. Removing a single tree impacts hundreds of wildlife. This is before we even discuss the value of trees in reducing carbon and protecting earth from water runoff. Tree value goes on and on. I would challenge everyone on the committee to read The Nature of Oaks by Doug Tallamy and then not see the need to replace every tree that is removed. I support tree replacement. Every removed tree should be required to be replaced with a native tree - whether it’s an over story tree or understory tree. Let’s not repeat the Bradford Pear tree disaster. Replace trees. Replace them with native trees. Thank you.

Friends of Accotink Creek SUPPORTS Del. Bulova's HB1346 regarding tree canopy. Due to increased development, many areas in Virginia are losing trees to impervious surfaces. More impervious surfaces means more stormwater runoff. One inch of rainfall on an acre of parking produces 27,000 gallons of stormwater. (Source: Penn State Extension). Stormwater runoff is the number one cause of stream erosion in urban and suburban areas. Restoring eroded streams is costly for Virginia taxpayers: The Town of Vienna's 2nd phase of the Bear Branch stream-restoration project along 2,300 feet of Bear Branch comes to $2.52 million. Fairfax County will pay one half, the state of Virginia the other. That amounts to $1,096 per foot. And that's just one project! Stormwater runoff also silts up lakes. Dredging lakes, to retain their value as recreational amenities, is extremely costly. Lake Accotink in Fairfax County has a sediment load of some 500 cubic yards and requires a dredging project estimated at $60 million. The work will begin in 2023. If stormwater is not reduced, the lake will need future dredgings. Stormwater runoff also pollutes our waterways. As it pounds down on paved surfaces, stormwater picks up trash, oil and grease, pet waste, pesticides, lawn fertilizer, road salt, and metals, and carries them into streams. An important function of trees is to absorb stormwater falling on impervious surfaces. A single mature, deciduous tree intercepts from 500 to 700 gallons of water from rainfall each year. Lawns absorb very little. Delegates of the CC&T Committee, we urge you not to cave to the demands of special interest groups, and allow communities in Virginia burdened with the costs of excessive stormwater to manage their own solutions. Please support HB 1346/ SB537.

Please support HB1346 so that localities have the power to require the replacement and planting of trees during the development process. The destruction of trees by developers causes erosion and run-off, lessens the quality of the air we breathe, affects energy bills, diminishes the beauty of neighborhoods, and increasingly leaves wildlife with no place left to go. Frequently it's also unnecessary, serving only to lower costs for the developer. If developers knew they would have to replace trees, maybe they would reconsider antiquated clear-cutting practices. Please support this bill and let local governments decide about this important issue.

The City of Portsmouth supports providing localiites the option to preserve their tree canopies. For Portmouth, it would be especially helpful in reducing flooding .

Please support (SB537 or HB1346) that gives local jurisdiction authority to require replacement and planting of trees during the development process, including an amendment that will grandfather in localities that adopted ordinances prior to 1990. Trees are a crucial community asset, helping to create a unique sense of place. Trees add value to residential properties and bring in more business in commercial districts. Trees help control stormwater runoff, help reduce energy bills, and cool their surrounding environment.

Please help the trees, and move to report this bill. Thank you.

Each of the four bills (HB 541, 706, 1316, and 1346) deals with tree canopy, tree replacement, conservation, and credits during the development process. VLA opposes bills which grant authority to localities to dictate certain canopy cover. We fear such restriction might be construed to give localities additional authority to dictate, restrict, or prohibit legitimate silvicultural activities. We also know of situations where legitimate forest harvesters are perceived to be part of the development and localities have tried to hold them responsible for erosion & sediment regulations. Forest harvesting is often the first land disturbance activity to occur in development. Legitimate silviculture is exempt from erosion & sediment rules although subject to the silvicultural water quality law in 10.1-1181.2. Forest harvesters can inadvertently become involved as part of the development when in fact they are secured only to perform the silvicultural forest harvesting. This incorrect interpretation can result in problems for the innocent. Localities have access to many experts who can help development project leaders determine best practices for water quality, shade, aesthetics, and control of erosion and sediment movement. VLA contends it is difficult to arbitrarily set canopy tree cover standards when it should be based on the professional judgements of skilled practitioners. VLA hopes this may help you to understand the concerns of our members and business owners. We are happy to discuss and help as needed. VLA appreciates your leadership on the House Counties, Cities and Towns Committee and the work you do to help your constituents.

I SUPPORT Delegate Bulova's HB1346. The Dept. of Forestry says that Virginia loses 16,000 acres of trees every year to development and disease. We need to be planting a lot more to stem this loss. Communities need the authority to protect their tree canopies from rapacious developers who clear cut lots for their own convenience, and do not trouble to replant them. The house next door to us had 15 to 20 mature trees. Now it has only the 2 small ones planted by the builders. Trees are valuable not only for the ecological services they provide, but for their beauty. Please prioritize the needs of communities over the profits of developers.

Please support HB1346, a bill that should enjoy bipartisan support. Virginia's tree canopy is suffering, and local communities want to help. Mature trees preserve water, soil, and carbon, purify the air, provide shade during increasingly long hot summers, and increase residential and commercial property values. Developers nevertheless often cut down mature trees using the misguided reasoning that buyers prefer clear-cut lots and preserving trees isn't worth the effort. When construction is done, developers typically plant a few immature trees which may not even live one year. Please give local governments the authority to evaluate individual lots and projects, and preserve mature trees where appropriate. Lawmakers in Richmond don't have the time, skills, or expertise to displace local officials dedicated to beautifying their communities and ensuring good property values through trees. Thank you.

Please support HB1346 that gives local jurisdiction authority to require replacement and planting of trees during the development process, including an amendment that will grandfather in localities that adopted ordinances prior to 1990. Trees are a crucial community asset, helping to create a unique sense of place. Trees add value to residential properties and bring in more business in commercial districts. Trees help control stormwater runoff, help reduce energy bills, and cool their surrounding environment. Trees remove carbon dioxide from the air and provide oxygen via photosynthesis, making them an irreplaceable part of a healthy environment.

Newport News City Council supports HB1346 and legislation that provides local governments with greater authority in the reforestation, preservation, and management of urban forests in recognition of their ability to capture and store carbon, reduce stormwater runoff, improve air quality, reduce energy use, and mitigate urban heat islands and their health effects.

The City of Norfolk supports HB1346.

Please support HB1346 that gives local jurisdiction authority to require replacement and planting of trees during the development process, including an amendment that will grandfather in localities that adopted ordinances prior to 1990. Trees are a crucial community asset, helping to create a unique sense of place. Trees add value to residential properties and bring in more business in commercial districts. Trees help control stormwater runoff, help reduce energy bills, and cool their surrounding environment.

Virginia has been losing its tree canopy for many years. We are losing many mature trees every day to developers who clear entire lots of every living thing before they erect a house. When they're done, they plant a few very young trees, some of which die the first year. Please give local governments like my town the power to preserve more mature trees. Mature trees clean the air and provide habitat. They beautify our communities and lighten our hearts. Please support HB1346.

Friends of the Rappahannock supports HB1346. This bill gives localities the option to adopt additional authority to preserve and expand tree canopies following new development or redevelopment. For localities that have existing tree programs, there is no change. Thank you for your consideration of this important compromise legislation.

Virginia Loggers Association opposes HB 1346. Developers should work closely with local & state officials to determine the best prescription for individual developments. Mandates cannot replace careful planning and review of good site planning.

The question is: Should the Real Estate industry have special treatment regarding the Registration of a Short Term Rental (STR) over the individual in the use of privately owned land and real property? If Registration is exempted for a Real Estate landowner or acting as a Representative of a landowner, then it is obstructive against the individual landowner in the rightful use of privately owned property. It is an attempt, as was the similar SB 602, to gain control of land by an industry that wants to gain real property for profit. This is at the very least a violation of Article I of the Virginia Constitution in that it engenders a cost to the individual owner that a Realtor would not have to pay. Further, the bill does not have the Section that allowed neighborhoods to speak out whether for or against an STR, a degradation of their right to peaceful living and First Amendment rights. The Realtor’s cost of license is a cost to do business. HB 1362 sets up an unequal dis-advantage for the individual landowner to use his property as a STR, where allowed within the state, without added cost of realtor representation. Further, there appear to be conflicts of interest in that relatives of, and members of local and state governing bodies that have real estate holdings. SB 602 contained a double edged sword. The North Virginia Beach Civic League engaged its membership to overall oppose the bill, and thus, this HB 1362 bill lacks any voice of the people. Was it a mistake or another shrewdly engineered calculation to give more power to an industry over both local governments and the people those governments represent? The lawsuits cited by Sen. DeSteph needed his SRIKE of the bill in the Senate, as it does here. But more importantly, the Counties, Cities and Towns Committee, as indeed, the General Assembly represents the people, not the Real Estate brokers nor their Associations. This body IS the people’s government. STRIKE HB 1362.

HB 1362 is atrocious and we demand it be stricken. The Virginia Beach City Council has already put in place a moratorium on short term rentals (STRs) after fully listening to the citizens of Virginia Beach and deliberating for years on the matter. STRs are a scourge and create havoc for communities. We don't want our quiet residential neighborhoods converted to commercial zones, which would happen if STRs are allowed. Our neighborhoods are zoned residential, meaning that they are for residents, not for real estate companies, investors and individuals to run for-profit business enterprises. STRs ruin year-round residents’ peaceful enjoyment of their properties due to greater density with hordes of people and vehicles jam-packed into spaces meant for families. Residents are forced to suffer the increased noise from wild parties, increased traffic and congestion, garbage, lewd behavior, including short term renters publicly urinating and defecating, and increased crime generated by STRs. Shockingly, several shootings occurred in the past year alone at the residential north end of Virginia Beach at awful "flash parties" at STRs. Such parties attract hundreds of miscreants to family neighborhoods and put everyone at risk. Our families are subjected to this danger in our own neighborhoods. Another terrible effect of STRs is that they destroy our communities from the constant influx of tourists in summer and creation of ghost towns in the winter. The people of Virginia Beach have spoken and are overwhelmingly opposed to STRs. The decision has been made locally, as it should be. The state has no right to ram this down our throats. Please stop this horrific bill immediately!

Please do NOT advance House Bill 1362 which would limit the ability of localities to restrict Short Term Rentals. Senator DeSteph of Virginia Beach recently introduced the similar Senate Bill 602, but after hearing from constituents and Virginia Beach City Council, he then asked to strike it in committee. I urge you to do the same. As Senator DeSteph reported by email to his constituents, “At least 5 lawsuits have been filed related to this subject, which will be heard over the next 3 to 6 months. Because considerable discussion on the issue has now taken place and the fact that legal issues related to the matter are pending – (the General Assembly does not pass bills to change the code on issues with pending litigation) I decided to strike the bill from further consideration. The problematic impacts of unrestricted Short Term Rentals on localities in Virginia and across the United States are significant and difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. The Virginia General Assembly should be giving localities MORE tools to manage Short Term Rentals, not fewer. As is well known to Delegate Davis, the co-patron of this bill who represents a portion of Virginia Beach, and to Delegate Williams-Graves, a member of this committee who also represents a portion of Virginia Beach, our City Council and Planning Commission invested extraordinary time and effort and multiple public hearings over the last few years to determine whether and how to manage STR’s. Based on that process, our City Council enacted ordinances to allow STR’s in our hotel resort district where STR’s are a compatible use, and to impose reasonable requirements on them, but they did not allow STR's in residential zones. Short Term Rental owners/investors improperly claim that local restrictions violate their property rights. In fact, there are many restrictions on operating businesses in residential neighborhoods to minimize impacts of commercial activity on residents. Short Term Rentals are small hotels with no management on site to deal with incidents timely, but operators of them seek to avoid restrictions that apply to any other business. Imposing restrictions on Short Term Rentals in residential neighborhoods does not deprive their owners/investors of property rights any more that do similar restrictions on other business in residential neighborhoods. Please do not advance this bill. Respectfully, Andrew Cohen

To the Chair and Members of the House Committee on Counties, Cities, and Towns, I join many of my neighbors in asking that you NOT advance House Bill 1362 which would limit the ability of localities to restrict Short Term Rentals. Senator DeSteph of Virginia Beach introduced a similar bill in the Senate, but after hearing from constituents and Virginia Beach City Council, he then asked to strike it in committee. I urge you to do the same. As Senator DeSteph reported by email to his constituents, “At least 5 lawsuits have been filed related to this subject, which will be heard over the next 3 to 6 months. Because considerable discussion on the issue has now taken place and the fact that legal issues related to the matter are pending – (the General Assembly does not pass bills to change the code on issues with pending litigation) I decided to strike the bill from further consideration.” The problematic impacts of unrestricted Short Term Rentals on localities in Virginia and across the United States are significant and difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. The Virginia General Assembly should be giving localities MORE tools to manage Short Term Rentals, not fewer. As is well known to Delegate Davis, the co-patron of this bill who represents a portion of Virginia Beach, and to Delegate Williams-Graves, a member of this committee who also represents a portion of Virginia Beach, our City Council and Planning Commission invested extraordinary time and effort and multiple public hearings over the last few years to determine whether and how to manage STR’s. Based on that process, our City Council enacted ordinances to allow STR’s in our hotel resort district where STR’s are a compatible use, and to impose reasonable requirements on them, but they did not allow STR's in residential zones. Short Term Rental owners/investors improperly claim that local restrictions violate their property rights. In fact, there are many restrictions on operating businesses in residential neighborhoods to minimize impacts of commercial activity on residents. Short Term Rentals are small hotels with no management on site to deal with incidents timely, but operators of them seek to avoid restrictions that apply to any other business. Imposing restrictions on Short Term Rentals in residential neighborhoods does not deprive their owners/investors of property rights any more that do similar restrictions on other business in residential neighborhoods. Please do not advance this bill. Respectfully, Andrew Cohen