Delegate Williams’ HB 443 addresses and cures a major issue brought about by an unintentional error installed into Virginia Code Section 15.2-2204 (A) (second paragraph) by HB 2161 and SB 1151 last year that has caused many procedural headaches for local governing bodies adopting zoning legislation. I would ask that it be reported and that an Emergency Clause be added such that HB 443 can become law upon the Governor’s signature.

Hi, LeadsFly is a lead provider for companies all over the world. We provide high quality fresh leads for all business types, we are collecting new leads for all interested parties daily. Leave us a request or check out the data we have on hand for instant delivery. Visit us here: http://hodspeak.leadsfly.biz

HB646 is not the right solution to the opioid addiction crisis. It will create more problems rather than solving existing ones. • VA Code § 15.2-2291 requires that assisted living facilities and group homes with eight or fewer residents, licensed by the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS), be considered as residential occupancy by a single family for purposes of local zoning ordinances. These group homes can be established for individuals with mental illness, intellectual disability, or developmental disabilities, but the statute expressly prohibits housing individuals who currently use illegal drugs or who are addicted to controlled substances. • VA Code § 15.2-2291 is being abused and exploited by “Big Rehab,” an industry that is reaping enormous profits at the expense of both their patients and our communities. The statute was intended to afford persons with various developmental, physical, and/or mental health disabilities the opportunity to live semi-independently as our neighbors in single family communities. Instead, large for-profit companies are improperly operating what are actually medical care facilities, as defined by Virginia Code § 32.1-3, under the guise of group homes for disabled persons. • HB646 would remove the prohibition on establishing facilities for persons addicted to a controlled substance. Operators with DBHDS group home licenses are already using “dual diagnosis” to evade the prohibition, by housing individuals with both mental illness and substance addiction conditions. HB646 may permit the operation of facilities for drug abuse and addiction without applying for the DBHDS license currently required. • Residential neighborhoods are not compatible with these types of facilities. • Residents of neighborhoods where these facilities have been established have reported numerous problems, including: inadequate supervision of patients; trespassing on private property (including entering homes uninvited); interference with vehicular traffic; extraordinary numbers of calls to emergency services; medical and drug paraphernalia left in the open; and other serious and potentially dangerous nuisances. • For-profit companies based out of state are buying up single family homes and turning them into “luxury” treatment centers. They churn groups of eight patients through these so-called group homes every 45 days. These are patients, not residents, not neighbors, not members of the community, but patients. They aren’t establishing a home or permanent residence in our community. Patients are recruited for short-term mental illness and/or addiction treatment, usually paid for by their medical insurance, and released based on how long a stay in residential treatment their insurance will cover, not based on clinical progress.

Passage of this bill would enable for-profit rehabs, private equity firms, and insurance companies to make untold millions of dollars using questionable care providers to provide short-term medical care for people with drug addictions (and potentially also severe mental illness include schizophrenia and bipolar disease) in residential neighborhood group homes. This is currently what is happening in my peaceful Fairfax County neighborhood. VA Code § 15.2-2291 was intended to enable people with various developmental, physical, and/or mental health disabilities the opportunity to live semi-independently as our neighbors in single family communities, which is responsible and logical. Instead, large out-of-state private equity firms are buying homes in residential neighborhoods and leasing them to luxury rehab operators who are improperly churning out medical patients on a 45 day transient basis. These are commercial medical care facilities NOT residential group homes. These companies are using “dual diagnosis” criteria to evade the prohibition against housing people who are addicted to controlled substances, therefore housing individuals with both mental illness AND substance addiction in Virginia neighborhoods. Passage of HB646 would make opening for-profit rehab homes in Virginia neighborhoods even easier. Such residential based rehabs have wreaked havoc in other communities across the nation - google it. It should be noted that these treatment centers are not in the best interest of those they claim to be treating. There is no empirical evidence that supports the success of these short term ‘luxury’ rehabs. Patients are charged $10,000 a week for these luxury rehab programs in upscale residential neighborhoods, complete with private chef, yoga instructors, equine therapy, etc. However, when patients arrive, they receive a fraction of the care that was advertised. Additionally, these for-profit lux rehabs cut costs by offering low-wages, high turnover, and operating understaffed, which creates significant safety concerns for patients and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. These for-profit businesses make their money by providing the cheapest level of care, resulting in inadequate treatment and expertise. Customers of these commercial med facilities are entitled to use all of our shared common spaces such as trails, parks, and playgrounds. Our HOA pays the costs of maintaining these areas for their shareholders’ profit! In November 2023, an out-of-state private equity firm bought a home in my Fairfax County subdivision, and promptly leased it to a California-based luxury rehab company. The transient patients are not even all Virginia residents, rather they are shipped in from other states. These rehabs often hunt and recruit patients to fill their bedspace at $10,000 a week. They lose money if beds are left empty. As evidenced by VA court filings, the Protect Loudoun movement, and recent testimony at the Fairfax County Board of Zoning Appeals, other Virginia neighborhoods are going through the same situation. These facilities in Virginia are dramatically negatively impacting the lives of long-term residents in these neighborhoods, including disoriented unsupervised patients entering neighbor’s homes, threatening neighbors, dramatic influxes of vehicular traffic on narrow residential/private streets, and an inordinate amount of emergency 911 calls which have generated ambulance, police, and fire truck activity.

As a homeowner currently living next door to a gated luxury rehabilitation treatment campus with 3 mansions on 25 acres, passing HB646 would be yet another thorn in our residential community’s side. That these for-profit facilities are infiltrating neighborhoods all over the country by charading as “by-right” group homes is bad enough; they advertise treatments for over 50 mental health issues, including, anger management, sexual addiction, anxiety, depression, PTSD, mood disorders, borderline personality disorder, low self esteem, to name a few. And your bill wants to allow drug abuse treatment patients to this parade?? My family has acreage we lease to a non-profit care farm, which employs young adults with intellectual and developmental challenges. They farm land right next to this facility, within 150” of one of the houses. We have already had a couple of patients from the facility trespass on our property, close to the challenged workers, while trying to leave the facility treatment program without authorization. Even just viewing patients being chased by vehicle and facility employees can be extremely disturbing to our workers. The non-profit may have to relocate or cease operating entirely if their safety becomes an issue. And you want to add prescription and opioid drug abuse to the mix? HB646 should NOT be passed; it will erode neighborhoods and communities all over Virginia. We are not denying that many people do require serious treatment for drug and/or alcohol abuse, but they should be treated in a clinical or medical setting, not a residential community.

Please oppose HB646. This bill will have negative consequences our our community, residents, and those seeking treatment. Virginia Code 15.2-2291 does not, and should not supersede local zoning laws. Furthermore, substance abuse should not be treated in by-right group homes as many of these homes are located in rural areas without the proper access to medical facilities and medical professionals to oversea such treatment. Please protect our residential neighborhoods by keeping them residential and not allowing commercial treatment facilities to take over.

Comments Document

HB646 should be tabled until a ruling is issued as much of the language in this proposed bill relates to the pending litigation before the Court of Appeals of Virginia.   There is currently an appeal pending in the Court of Appeals of Virginia (Record Nos. 1161-23-4 & 1164-23-4) regarding the language of 15.2-2291 with a hearing date set for September 17 and 18, 2024.  (attached) The commercialization of residential neighborhoods was never the intent of 15.2-2291. In addition, it is noteworthy that the proposed new subsection “C” would contradict the prohibition in subsection A that disability “shall not include current illegal use or addiction to a controlled substance”. This is because addiction is not synonymous with current use.  Courts have recognized that the state of addiction is based on a history of use without rehabilitation and  period of abstinence.  Yet, the proposed legislation would allow persons who are addicted (those with “substance abuse disorder”) to reside in residential zones in contradiction to the prohibition in Subsection A.  The legislation would, in other words render the new Subsection C in conflict with the prohibition in Subsection A.

Protect Loudoun is a group of over 150 families in Northern Virginia, with over 1,000 petition signatures, writing to make you aware of the extremely negative and potentially harmful impact the proposed House Bill HB646 would have on Virginia communities. Not all group homes should treat drug addiction. While this bill may have been proposed with the best of intentions, the reality of allowing every state and federally protected group home to treat drug addiction “by-right” would have devastating consequences. This bill would only serve to help private equity backed rehab companies further their abuse of Virginia’s group home protections. For the past three years our community has been objecting to Monroe Real Estate, LLC/Newport Institute who bought up an entire gated subdivision, plus an undeveloped lot, in an agricultural zone where congregate/campus activity is fully prohibited. They have claimed state and federal protections for separate “by-right” group homes while neighbors continue to document campus activity to no avail. In 2019, Newport /Monroe RE, LLC attempted to operate from a row of three homes in McLean and were stopped by Fairfax County Zoning who determined “This is most similar to a congregate living facility”, and required a special permit in that zone. Newport/ Monroe RE, LLC did not seek permits, instead they sold those homes and in 2021 again tried for a three home campus in Virginia, but this time in Loudoun County. When Loudoun Zoning blundered then doubled down on their decision, our community came together to file a zoning appeal and now have a case that will be heard by the Virginia State Appeals Court this year. Again, not all group homes should treat drug addiction. There are specific zones within each county, deemed appropriate and safe by local zoning authorities and those careful and non-discriminatory considerations should NOT be negated by state politicians who do not have the insight into the real impacts of allowing profit-driven companies to dictate where rehab facilities can operate. This bill would shift important decisions from local officials to shareholder focused companies that do not care about their impact upon communities. We encourage you to visit www.protectloudoun.com and learn what we, and other communities in Virginia, have been dealing with. Please help us stop the bastardization of group home protections for profit. Do not provide a path for this issue to escalate. Drug treatment is important, and we need and rely on our local and state laws to ensure the safety of those seeking treatment, as well as those living nearby. Additionally these facilities need to be located near the proper support facilities. Lastly, these companies do not need help to add drug treatment. We already have evidence that they are being advertised and listed as drug treatment centers even when that currently negates their permits of “by-right” group home use in Virginia. While this bill would end a charade for many companies doing and saying whatever it takes to operate, it would most certainly escalate and exacerbate the issue across the state. Our situation has been handled abhorrently by local officials. We are seeking help from our State officials to empower them to stand up to private equity intimidation, not to give them more reasons to shrink away from their duties. This bill will have terrible consequences for those seeking care and nearby residents alike.

As a working mother who cares deeply about Virginia neighborhoods, I am writing to voice serious concern about HB646. Passage of this bill would enable insurance companies to make untold millions of dollars by providing short-term medical care for people with drug addictions (and potentially also severe mental illness include schizophrenia and bipolar disease) in residential neighborhood group homes. This is currently what is potentially about to happen 300 feet from my own home in Fairfax County and I am distraught. VA Code § 15.2-2291 requires that assisted living facilities and group homes with eight or fewer residents be considered as residential occupancy by a single family for purposes of local zoning ordinances. These group homes can be established for individuals with mental illness, intellectual disability, or developmental disabilities, but the statute expressly prohibits housing individuals who currently use illegal drugs or who are addicted to controlled substances. Instead, large for-profit companies are buying homes in residential neighborhoods like mine (in VA and elsewhere) and leasing them to luxury rehab companies who are improperly operating what are in truth medical care facilities. Companies are citing a “dual diagnosis” to evade the prohibition against housing people who are addicted to controlled substances by housing individuals with both mental illness AND substance addiction in Virginia neighborhoods. Passage of HB646 would make opening for-profit luxury rehab homes in Virginia neighborhoods even easier. VA Code § 15.2-2291 is already being shamelessly exploited by for-profit rehab companies who are buying homes in neighborhoods like mine in Virginia and turning normal neighborhoods into rehab zones with up to 8 mentally ill patients cycling through these "luxury rehab" centers for 30-45 days. In November 2023, an Ohio-based "health care real estate" company bought a home 2 doors down from my home in Fairfax County, and promptly leased it to a California-based luxury rehab company. This rehab company charges patients (and their insurance companies) tens of thousands of dollars for a 30 - 45 day stay. As evidenced by VA court filings and testimony at Zoning Board hearings where other Virginia neighborhoods are going through the same situation, these facilities in Virginia are dramatically negatively impacting the lives of long-term residents in these neighborhoods, including by patients trespassing, dramatic influxes of vehicular traffic on narrow neighborhood streets, and an inordinate amount of emergency 911 calls which have generated hugely increased ambulance, police, and fire truck activity to specific rehab homes. These patients cannot logically be considered "residents" as envisioned under the VA Code cited above, but transitory patients being churned through "luxury rehab" outfits. HB646 would only aggravate this serious problem. As a Federal government employee who has worked and saved for years to buy and afford my home in a safe and quiet Virginia neighborhood in a great school district in which my husband (also a Federal government employee) and I could raise our two young boys, it is utterly astonishing that our peace, quality of life, and potentially our family's safety could be so degraded because of misinformed laws that enable a commercial rehab company to move in right down the street. Please help us control this escalating problem by voting NO to HB646.

I signed up to speak and received confirmation, but no link this morning. I'm a good-government advocate from Petersburg and strongly support this bill. Petersburg STILL needs this early warning system. Our city leadership believes that having accumulated a healthy cash balance means AAA fiscal management. Rather, we have 10 recurring material weakness findings in our latest ACFR, FY 2022 -- we're late (as usual) for FY 2023 submission. 5 of those material weakness in internal controls findings have recurred for 7 years. The city lacks the in-house ability to prepare up-to-date financial reconciliations -- so we are flying blind, until our paid accounting and auditing consultants untangle it for us. When I was budget director at VDH and VITA, material weaknesses, particularly recurring ones, were a real big no-no. Localities need to have the same healthy fear of adverse ACFR findings.

Good Morning Everyone, My name is Johnny Partin, and I am the Mayor for the City of Hopewell. Today I am speaking as 1 of 2 members on our city council that support this legislation. Our city can trace its problems back to approximately 2015. Had legislation like this been passed and in place back then, our present situation in the city would have been prevented. These issues and problems would have been addressed and fixed back in 2017 before I even got elected to city council. But we are here today addressing local governments experiencing fiscal distress. You all are in a great position to prevent what is currently happening in Hopewell from other localities across the Commonwealth. You all are in a great position to protect the financial health of all localities and improve the Commonwealth's, and lastly you are in a great position to protect our citizens and improve their quality of life. I urge you all to support this bill. You may not have a community in your district that is in fiscal distress today, but you may one day. No community is immune from fiscal distress. And wouldn't it be great to have a safeguard like this legislation in place to protect the citizens and get the community the help it needs. Thank you Johnny Partin

I am submitting the following comments on the proposed HB655. Through my 25+ years in closely following Hopewell government, coupled with my 45 years in Banking, and my recent four years on Hopewell City Council, I would like to say that while I am not totally opposed to this bill, I believe that the State's early intervention to help localities is much more critical than takeover should ever be. Coming in and having to take over a locality should not be the state's agenda unless absolutely necessary and then done so working with the locality to build for a sustainable future. The recognition a locality has an issue must start in the process much earlier to help review and assist that locality. The audit process is in place for that very reason and the state is not utilizing it to the ability I believe they should. As a Banker, I must adhere to strict audits from both the Federal and State levels, or risk penalties. The safety of taxpayer's dollars is paramount. Banks are audited on many aspects and are required to pass those audits. Why would the state allow even one annual audit to go past due without questions or one financial portion of an APA audit to fail without having a presence in the locality to follow up and work with the locality? Approximately, five to six years ago, our elected Treasurer at the time, failed APA audits. I called the APA Director myself to ask what was being done with regards to our failed audits and her response was that the APA did not have the schedule nor the staff to come back in to follow up. When localities transact with millions of local taxpayers' dollars and they cannot pass APA audits, and APA does not step in for discovery at that time because of staff and scheduling shortages, that makes NO sense and is wrong. Why do the audits? This is exactly where some of the initial emphasis needs to be placed. Audits, both by APA and outside firms, are only as good as the state's follow up on the audit's content and findings allows them to be! Hopewell is the poster child of how a new accounting system implemented poorly, can negatively impact everything and when of audits are not completed for years! Doesn't mean takeover should be immanent. The second issue I have is allowing elected Treasurers to have no knowledge and experience criteria required for election. I spoke with both Deputy Finance Director John Markowitz and Delegate Coyner about this issue last year. I do not know that either have any plans to suggest to the state that these criteria might be helpful to our localities, so I will. I do not understand why the State would allow anyone to be elected to a local Treasurer position with no knowledge of accounting or finance! Treasurers are independent of the locality authority as an elected official. Someone handling millions of dollars of taxpayer's money should have at least a basic knowledge of accounting or municipal accounting. As a citizen of Virginia, that is what I want. Would you let a Commonwealth's Attorney be elected without a law degree? Knowledge and experience is important for local financial health. It is time to focus attention to the issues to help localities early in the process and not threaten a takeover which ultimately benefits no one. Set up standards for audits and the process. Review and assist localities as soon as they fail an audit or get behind. Do not wait for years to pass.

Please support HB950. Giving local jurisdictions the ability to adopt stretch codes requiring builders to meet more stringent energy efficiency requirements during new construction and renovations will give them an important tool to reduce energy cost to residents and commercial building occupants. Current Virginia building codes are woefully behind national recommended standards and substandard energy efficiency requirements pass on unnecessary costs for owners and occupants throughout the life of the building or until expensive upgrades are made. This burden is felt most by low to moderate income households who often have to choose between food and paying utility bills, More efficient buildings are also more resilient during power outages because they can retain temperatures longer than poorly insulated buildings. Enhanced building codes are better for consumers and better for local economies.

Support HB950. Builders will do the bare minimum to save money, so giving local jurisdictions the ability to adopt stretch codes requiring builders to meet more stringent energy efficiency requirements during new construction and renovations will move Virginia forward faster to meet the challenge of climate change. Current Virginia building codes are woefully behind national recommended standards. Enhanced building codes are better for consumers and better for local economies.

Support HB950. Giving local jurisdictions the ability to adopt stretch codes requiring builders to meet more stringent energy efficiency requirements during new construction and renovations will give them an important tool to reduce energy cost to residents and commercial building occupants. Current Virginia building codes are woefully behind national recommended standards and substandard energy efficiency requirements pass on unnecessary costs for owners and occupants throughout the life of the building or until expensive upgrades are made. This burden is felt most by low to moderate income households who often have to choose between food and paying utility bills, More efficient buildings are also more resilient during power outages because they can retain temperatures longer than poorly insulated buildings. Enhanced building codes are better for consumers and better for local economies.

I support this policy, which would allow communities like Arlington to implement stricter building codes with higher energy efficiency standards that can cut back on a lot of climate change-producing greenhouse gases. In addition to reducing pollution, higher energy efficiency standards for buildings will help all Virginians by lowering utilities’ need to spend more for energy generation and transmission and for customer efficiency programs. More efficient buildings will help Virginia’s economy cope with the growing costs of climate change. We are in a climate change crisis, and we need to act now. Please pass this bill.

Support HB950. As a young adult, I'm very concerned about how the climate crisis will impact our future. As a member of Arlington's Housing Commission, it is frustrating that our county has no ability to require developers to meet stronger energy efficiency requirements. Giving local jurisdictions the ability to adopt stretch codes requiring builders to meet more stringent energy efficiency requirements during new construction and renovations will give them an important tool to reduce energy cost to residents and commercial building occupants. Current Virginia building codes are woefully behind national recommended standards and substandard energy efficiency requirements pass on unnecessary costs for owners and occupants throughout the life of the building or until expensive upgrades are made. This burden is felt most by low to moderate income households who often have to choose between food and paying utility bills, More efficient buildings are also more resilient during power outages because they can retain temperatures longer than poorly insulated buildings. Enhanced building codes are better for consumers and better for local economies.

Support HB950. Giving local jurisdictions the ability to adopt stretch codes requiring builders to meet more stringent energy efficiency requirements during new construction and renovations will give them an important tool to reduce energy cost to residents and commercial building occupants. Current Virginia building codes are below national recommended standards, and substandard energy efficiency requirements pass on unnecessary costs for owners and occupants throughout the life of the building or until expensive upgrades are made. This burden is felt most by low to moderate income households who often have to choose between food and paying utility bills, More efficient buildings are also more resilient during power outages because they can retain temperatures longer than poorly insulated buildings. Enhanced building codes are better for consumers and better for local economies.

Support HB950. Giving local jurisdictions the ability to adopt stretch codes requiring builders to meet more stringent energy efficiency requirements during new construction and renovations will give them an important tool to reduce energy cost to residents and commercial building occupants. Current Virginia building codes are woefully behind national recommended standards and substandard energy efficiency requirements pass on unnecessary costs for owners and occupants throughout the life of the building or until expensive upgrades are made. This burden is felt most by low to moderate income households who often have to choose between food and paying utility bills, More efficient buildings are also more resilient during power outages because they can retain temperatures longer then poorly insulated buildings. Enhanced building codes are better for consumers and better for local economies.

HB950 should be approved. Local governments need authority to protect their residents and economy from higher utility costs jeopardizing affordability, wasted energy, higher pollution and lack of readiness for climate impacts over buildings’ 50-100 year lifetimes. Retrofits are far more costly. Virginia’s building code for energy efficiency has fallen behind national building codes and Virginia law. It sets minimums but does not permit localities to require more stringent standards even though its national model code (International Energy Conservation Code) is both more stringent and has some stretch code provisions. Buildings are Virginia’s second largest driver of carbon emissions. And, as documented by the U.S. Department of Energy, greater energy efficiency will save occupants money and increase affordability throughout buildings lives. U.S. DOE encourages adoption of energy stretch codes, as well as the full IECC. Better insulation will also increase resiliency during power outages. Reducing energy demand through efficiency will benefit all Virginians and Virginia’s economy by lowering utilities costs to produce and deliver energy and to make efficiency retrofits, thereby reducing utility rates. Many localities are establishing policies to meet the growing climate crisis. However, they need the authority to set more stringent building efficiency standards to meet their goals. Fairfax County has made energy and climate stretch-code authority a legislative priority for 2024. No locality has an incentive to require more building efficiency than is needed to serve its community’s interests; and, the bill would not permit local standards that are weaker than the USBC. Other states, including our neighbor Maryland, permit localities to adopt stretch codes. The IECC itself has stretch code provisions as well as stronger efficiency standards than the USBC.

The Great Falls Citizens Association opposes HB 1459. Citizens must retain the right to challenge decisions regarding land use made by local governments. This bill would make it harder for constituents to hold local governments accountable when decisions are made without properly following the law. Its broad language deems that any local land use decision made in violation of existing statutory requirements cannot be made void or legally challenged after 30 days have passed. We urge committee members to oppose this bill.

HB 1459 would let decisions made by local governments without properly following the law stand – both those made in the past as well as those made in the future. The bill language in particular deems that any local land use decision made in violation of existing statutory requirements cannot be made void or legally challenged after 30 days have passed. This would include decisions on rezonings, special permits and similar land use proposals, and the adoption of guiding documents like comprehensive plans or zoning ordinances. I urge you to oppose HB 1459. Thank you in advance.

I support this proposed legislation as I would like to limit the ways that special interests can use procedure to thwart action on ordinance revisions that benefit the larger community. I appreciate that this bill gives clear procedure for local bodies to enact zoning ordinances.

Our organization is opposed to HB1459 which would limit or prevent lawsuits against local government agencies violating statutes. This bill does not serve the public interest and would encourage decision makers to ignore legal requirements for actions they take as public officials. Please oppose HB1459!

Please vote “no” to HB1459 in its entirety. The proposed Bill would unnecessarily deny citizens and other stakeholders the ability to intervene or appeal any zoning ordinance or amendment to any zoning ordinance after 30 days. The legislative intent of the Bill is opaque, and without further explanation, it is impossible to imagine under what circumstances such restrictions would benefit the public interest. Having been involved with County Ordinances in Fairfax and Fauquier Counties for 30 years, it is not uncommon for problems with zoning ordinances to become apparent only after they have been tested during their application. Numerous incidents have occurred where improper publication of hearing information, incomplete disclosure of motivating factors for ordinance changes, and inadequate clarity in the legislative intent of the ordinance have impacted affected parties and damaged the public good. Creating new legislation that would preclude void ab initio claims for any reason would immeasurably erode local government accountability for lawful vetting of zoning ordinances in the future. Compelling potentially impacted parties to file expensive legal motions in Circuit Court within 30 days of a zoning change would be a direct insult to the due process citizens of the commonwealth have enjoyed until now and has no merit. Moreover, applying this restriction retroactively could undo numerous instances where zoning ordinances have been overturned for good reasons. It will also impact active litigation in Warrenton, where the Town failed to follow its procedures on a controversial zoning text amendment. Vote “no” to HB1459.