I urge legislators to oppose Delegate Fowler's HB1473 as a diminution in the current statutory notice requirements of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and an attempt to undermine constitutional due process with regard to citizens' property rights. If this legislation passes, the expense of legal challenges and unlawful takings will far exceed what each saved in word-count for publication. Quite frankly, it is ridiculous.

I am writing to support these bills to allow us to continue to do short term rentals in Virginia Beach. Thank you so much. Julie Peters 112 53rd St

I am curious about 1473. I don't disagree that the community input process can get silly and allow far too much platforming for the loudest NIMBYs. But I want to know the rationale for this bill and what it would look like once implemented, if implemented. I support 1482 and 1612.

This bill, like HB2161, puts obstacles in front of hard-working, tax paying Virginians to easily access what is being proposed in their communities in terms of development so that they can have a voice in what impact it will have on their lives and that of the community. If our legislature believes in transparency, then why support giving zoning the option of a tax map no. or an address of the property? Of course, it should be an address. Why remove the description from easy access? The information should be clear and readily accessible to everyone. And why would any representative want to remove the requirement of notices when there are proposed amendments concerning general usage, density and other data regarding to density as the proposal states, when these elements will directly effect everyone in the community from traffic, school capacity, safety, pollution, effect on environment, size of support services, etc., etc., etc. There is no monetary savings when those that will be impacted by development have less input into what is being considered in their own community due to removing or lessening full transparency. Zoning board members are not elected but their decisions can impact a community for years to come, sometimes transforming communities - whether good or bad - as a result of the decision of only a few appointed people who may only be receiving one perspective on upcoming projects, usually all in favor of the petitioner. Isn't it your obligation to serve the entire community and give everyone the best chance to participate in these serious decisions, with special consideration to those living in the community that can best contribute to the best decision for development in that community? Don't cut them out. Rather than putting up obstacles to transparency, how do we make it even easier for them to receive the information on the original proposal, all the subsequent proposed amendments and easy access to the zoning board even if they can't attend the meeting. Thank you for your consideration.

HB 1473 would seriously compromise transparency in government, the citizens' right to know, and the citizens' ability to engage as informed participants for their community's future. Please withdraw the bill. Thank you.

This is a terrible bill! Taxpayer dollars should be conserved everywhere possible, but the tiny advertising expense savings cannot begin to justify the loss of transparency that this bill promotes. This bill allows a zoning advertisement to skip the descriptive summary of the zoning action and then allow only a tax map number in lieu of a street address. How are citizens supposed to know what zoning is being requested? They can go to the locality to get details, but with no description and only a tax map number, how are they to know if they are even interested in pursuing? Do citizens have to go to the locality on every zoning case? Could the extra work by county staff outweigh the small advertisement dollars saved? Then - one of the most egregious provisions: this bill eliminates the requirement for an extra public hearing when land is zoned to a more intensive use. What could possibly be the purpose of this? This is one of the worst big-government bills I've seen in quite a while. There is no fixing this bill - it needs to be pulled by the patron or defeated.

Virginia LCV encourages you to oppose HB 1473 (Fowler). While we conceptually support streamlining notice requirements, we are concerned that the elimination of a description of proposed action, and the elimination of an additional public hearing in cases of upzoning to a more intensive land use, will limit public engagement in regards to land use decisions that will affect their community. Reasons to OPPOSE HB1473: Virginians should have clear, easy-to-understand, notice regarding land-use decisions that affect their community. Descriptions of proposed actions facilitate that. Decisions by a locality to approve more intensive land use applications often have impacts beyond the property lines of the parcels that are developed. Effects include traffic and transportation changes, water and air quality, viewshed, and alteration of natural resources These potential changes should be accompanied by additional opportunities for community engagement for citizens to share how their lives stand to be impacted by decisions made by their local elected and appointed officials.

AMEND THIS BILL. More government control with less public input is definitely not what Republicans should be fighting for. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS PARAGRAPH IN 15.2 - 2285(C): In the case of a proposed amendment to the zoning map, the public notice shall state the general usage and density range of the proposed amendment and the general usage and density range, if any, set forth in the applicable part of the comprehensive plan. However, no land may be zoned to a more intensive use classification than was contained in the public notice without an additional public hearing after notice required by з 15.2-2204 Removing this paragraph allows the government to change the zoning of residential areas at will . A zoning change without public notice and comment removes the opportunity of a homeowner to defend their property and way of life. Please reinstate this restriction or vote no on this bill.

HB1473 DEl. My name is Christopher Miller, and I am President of the Piedmont Environmental Council. Del. Fowler bill seeks to streamline the notice requirements for plans, zoning, and other actions. PEC supports improving the notice process to assist citizens ability to participate and agrees that notices can be be simplified and reference materials available online from local government and in writing at easily accessible locations. But the bill proposes to eliminate existing requirements for notice and hearing for actions that would increase density beyond what has been previously noticed, striking the following: "In the case of a proposed amendment to the zoning map, the public notice shall state the general usage and density range of the proposed amendment and the general usage and density range, if any, set forth in the applicable part of the comprehensive plan. However, no land may be zoned to a more intensive use classification than was contained in the public notice without an additional public hearing after notice required by §15.2-2204." We oppose this part of the bill and would respectfully request that the patron eliminate this provision. Increases in density impose significant impacts on neighbors and communities and should require additional opportunity for comment.

I am writing to support these bills to allow us to continue to do short term rentals in Virginia Beach. Thank you so much. Julie Peters 112 53rd St

I am curious about 1473. I don't disagree that the community input process can get silly and allow far too much platforming for the loudest NIMBYs. But I want to know the rationale for this bill and what it would look like once implemented, if implemented. I support 1482 and 1612.

Virginia First Cities Coalition is supportive of the bills that give our local governments more tools to deal with blighted, derelict property. These two bills, as amended, will provide our cities a better tool to get these properties back into productive (and taxpaying) use.

City Council members are elected officials, and off-cycle appointments should be no different. The citizens of Virginia Beach should have the right to choose who is governing the city in every vacancy situation. Please pass HB1528 which puts the power to select local government representation back in the hands of the people being represented.

Our City if Virginia Beach manager is supposed to take instruction from our City Council as a body, a body who voted in favor of HB1528. Our manager apparently took instruction from only some of our VBCC and not the group as a body when he apparently instructed our legislative liaison to follow the instruction of only a partial body vote and submit a neutral stance on this important voters rights bill. Both of these taxpayer funded executives let the public down by not following the instructions of our VBCC as a body. The voters will get them to get our elected officials to sort them out but in the meantime please don’t let a couple of apparent deviant executives acting on only a partial VBCC vote hold up the people’s business regarding this critical amendment to our City charter. In a City with a proven disparity issue (we did a taxpayer funded study) bordering on criminal it is imperative that taxpayers actually get to vote for their elected officials and not have appointed replacements contributing to more disparity which historically has sadly been the case with appointments. We are the largest City in the state and if our voters rights are not protected, don’t expect yours to be either! We are the leader of the FREE world, please do your part to keep it that way. 🇺🇸

Council members in Virginia Beach are appointed to vacant seats frequently -- often for a good portion of the term. This is a disservice to the voters of Virginia Beach. Council members MUST be elected by Virginia Beach Voters. Voters choose who represents them, NOT other council members. This bill corrects this issue.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: In the spirit of full transparency, the City Council vote for Virginia Beach Charter Change, HB 1528, was not unanimous. The previous City Council voted 6-5 to include this item in its Legislative Agenda. The newly elected, now seated Council has 5 new members and has not weighed in on this charter change. Thank you, Debra M. Bryan Legislative Affairs Director City of Virginia Beach

Last year the City Council of Virginia Beach interviewed and appointed members from a pool of voluntary applicants to serve in vacant seats. The people from the districts represented in those seats were illegally deprived of their right to vote. I support the HB 1528 bill. There should be no impediment to the passage of this bill by the General Assembly.

I ask this subcommittee to support HB1528. Virginia Beach has a history of rule by faction. A federal court found our old voting processes, filled with at-large seats, to be a violation of federal law. It was also a violation of the voters constitutional protections against rule by faction as presented by Virginia's own native son James Madison in the Federalist papers, Ch 9 & 10. The current "appointment" process to fill city council vacancies is just a knowingly furtherance of that designed process that keeps promoting faction rule. HB1528 bring democracy to Virginia Beach by insuring the people are represented by candidates of their choice. Vote yes on HB1528.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: on behalf of the City of Suffolk, we strongly support HB1607. The City included in its 2023 Legislative Priorities, the need for increased civil penalties for zoning violations to better handle repeat offenders. Increasing penalties for these violations will deter offenders who repeatedly receive citations, attend court/pay fines, and commit these violations again. Localities need a way to deal with these violations that do not rise to the level of a criminal misdemeanor, which is the only avenue available to us now under the Dillon Rule. We respectfully request that you will support this legislation. Thank you for your consideration!

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: HB1607 would provide a very important tool for the City of Virginia Beach, as well as other localities. The subcommittee vote was split for reasons I do not understand, since there was no opposition to the bill and many localities that spoke in support. Localities need a way to deal with infractions that do not rise to the level of a criminal misdemeanor, which is the only avenue available to us now under the Dillon Rule. We respectfully request that you move this bill forward to give us the authority needed to pass an ordinance to impose a civil penalty for non-criminal, yet disruptive actions within our localities. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Debra M Bryan Director of Legislative Affairs City of Virginia Beach

The City of Portsmouth strongly supports the following bills: HB1612, (HB1482), HB1607. We also strongly oppose: HB1665 and HB1667 Thank you...

Dear Members of Subcommittee#2 of Counties, Cities and Towns: My name is John McCarthy, Senior Adviser of the Piedmont Environmental Council, based in Warrenton, Virginia. The Piedmont Environmental Council was formed in 1972 for the purpose of preserving and protecting the natural resources, rural economy, history, and beauty of the Virginia Piedmont and as a part of our engagement with our communities, we work in the field of land use planning throughout our nine member counties. In addition , I had the honor of being County Administrator of Rappahannock County for almost three decades, so my comments on this bill is predicated on both engagements. The burden on local governments of enforcing responsible land use controls would be expedited in the public interest by the adoption of this legislation. The civil summons process would both facilitate fast and efficient resolution to disputes and I would argue would accrue to the benefit of the alleged violator as well as the local government's interest in addressing violations. The substitution of the civil process in place of the arduous criminal process would be a benefit to the courts, as well. We urge you to support passage of this legislation

I serve as Vice-Chair of the Resort Advisory Commission in Virginia Beach. The commission’s role is to advise city council on decisions effecting our resort area. I chair one of the committees, the Oceanfront Enhancement Committee. One of the issues that came before my committee was the “retail sprawl” that occurs each summer in our resort from merchants using the sidewalk and public right-of-way to merchandise their wares. We have existing laws that prohibit this, but enforcement is ineffective. When a merchant is cited, there are several months of delays in getting it to court. Generally, the offender gets a slap on the wrist after the prime season is over. We believe the attached bill will remedy the problem by making it a civil offense where the offender can receive fines for each/every day they are in violation. A similar bill did not make it out of committee last year, but I don’t think it or the motivation behind it was fully understood. This is not the creation of a new law, only a more effective means of enforcement against violations. If passed, this will provide a very useful tool for municipalities throughout the Commonwealth who struggle to enforce existing public right-of-way laws.

I am writing to support these bills to allow us to continue to do short term rentals in Virginia Beach. Thank you so much. Julie Peters 112 53rd St

I am curious about 1473. I don't disagree that the community input process can get silly and allow far too much platforming for the loudest NIMBYs. But I want to know the rationale for this bill and what it would look like once implemented, if implemented. I support 1482 and 1612.

Virginia First Cities Coalition is supportive of the bills that give our local governments more tools to deal with blighted, derelict property. These two bills, as amended, will provide our cities a better tool to get these properties back into productive (and taxpaying) use.

The City of Portsmouth strongly supports the following bills: HB1612, (HB1482), HB1607. We also strongly oppose: HB1665 and HB1667 Thank you...

The City of Portsmouth strongly supports the following bills: HB1612, (HB1482), HB1607. We also strongly oppose: HB1665 and HB1667 Thank you...

Dear Members of Subcommittee #2, Counties, Cities & Towns: My name is John McCarthy, Senior Adviser of the Piedmont Environmental Council, based in Warrenton, Virginia. The Piedmont Environmental Council was formed in 1972 for the purpose of preserving and protecting the natural resources, rural economy, history, and beauty of the Virginia Piedmont and as a part of our engagement with our communities, we work in the field of land use planning throughout our nine member counties. In addition , I had the honor of being County Administrator of Rappahannock County for almost three decades, so my comments on these bills, and a further extension of the existing grandfathering of previously approved land use decisions, is colored by both engagements. We feel that a further extension to 2025, from those granted to 2023, does not serve the interests of our communities, our citizens and our taxpayers, as the underlying conditions that pertained to those approvals have changed radically since the onset of the COVID pandemic. Just as the broader economy was ravaged by the pandemic, local government planning and land use decision-making has evolved through comprehensive plan amendments and updates in many of our communities, and the changed circumstances of the intervening years calls out for the due sunsetting of plans made in a very different economic landscape than that which pertains today. Please allow the current sunsetting of approvals to take place, so that communities can address their current needs based on current realities, not ones that have lapsed with time Thank you.

• As Virginia’s Association representing older, core cities, the Virginia First Cities Coalition is neither for or against HB 1676, though do want to take the opportunity to remind members that our cities bare the stresses of 21st century and all that goes along with it from social issues, to demands on infrastructure, to sidewalks and bike lanes and information technology corridors and high rises. We cannot grow our tax base. “Today many Virginia cities continue to have a large tax burden, more fiscal stress and less ability to develop than before the moratorium ….. The annexation moratorium is negatively affecting older cities' economic growth, …..” Sorrell and Vlk, Virginia Institute of Government/Weldon Cooper Center, University of Virginia, January 2012 • Almost 70 percent of Virginians live in communities served by police departments. The State created a program of financial assistance to local police departments (HB 599) when it imposed an annexation moratorium on cities more than 30 years ago. It has increasingly de- emphasized this funding obligation as a priority but has never compromised on the annexation moratorium. • The 16 members of the Virginia First Cities Coalition ask that funding for HB 599 conform the amount of state funding for localities with police departments to the requirements contained in the Code of Virginia. There are several submitted budget amendments in the House and the Senate that do that and we urge your support. • We also want to remind members that because of all of the above and the inability to grow, the moratorium on annexation promised aid to our city police departments (HB 599 funding) and funding for our city streets. So, now we share the HB 599 funding pot with many counties that have police departments in addition to sheriffs. And, funding for HB 59 has rarely, if ever, increased per statute. [There was an increase for the current fiscal year, but there were years where state general fund revenues were up and HB 599 funding stayed flat. Meanwhile, sheriffs and state police funding were increased.] • We work alongside our local government brethren, VML and VaCo, to always support increased funding for our local police departments, but especially our city police departments. For this was the promise made to our cities for not being able to annex and grow. We urge the members to please support increased funding for HB 599, Aid to Localities/Cities with Police Departments as well as funding for City street maintenance.

I am writing to support these bills to allow us to continue to do short term rentals in Virginia Beach. Thank you so much. Julie Peters 112 53rd St

HB1473 DEl. My name is Christopher Miller, and I am President of the Piedmont Environmental Council. Del. Fowler bill seeks to streamline the notice requirements for plans, zoning, and other actions. PEC supports improving the notice process to assist citizens ability to participate and agrees that notices can be be simplified and reference materials available online from local government and in writing at easily accessible locations. But the bill proposes to eliminate existing requirements for notice and hearing for actions that would increase density beyond what has been previously noticed, striking the following: "In the case of a proposed amendment to the zoning map, the public notice shall state the general usage and density range of the proposed amendment and the general usage and density range, if any, set forth in the applicable part of the comprehensive plan. However, no land may be zoned to a more intensive use classification than was contained in the public notice without an additional public hearing after notice required by §15.2-2204." We oppose this part of the bill and would respectfully request that the patron eliminate this provision. Increases in density impose significant impacts on neighbors and communities and should require additional opportunity for comment.

I am writing to support these bills to allow us to continue to do short term rentals in Virginia Beach. Thank you so much. Julie Peters 112 53rd St

Dear Chair and members of the CC&T Subcomittee #1, Thank you for the opportunity to convey my support for HB 2005, patroned by Delegate Danica Roem. The amendments before you today will bring the Town of Haymarket charter into alignment with the state code, with respect to town elections being moved from May to November and also addresses related town council terms of office. Many obsolete provisions are eliminated , effectively streamlining the document for ease of reference and use, as well as updating the town’s boundaries to provide a clear distinction for use by citizens and stakeholders. The charter amendments were reviewed, revised, and unanimously approved by the town council after public discussion and a public hearing, allowing for citizen feedback and comment. I thank you for your time and attention in consideration of this bill and wish you the best for a successful session. Warm regards, Joseph R. Pasanello Councilmember - Town of Haymarket Jpasanello@townofhaymarket.org

I am writing to support these bills to allow us to continue to do short term rentals in Virginia Beach. Thank you so much. Julie Peters 112 53rd St