Accessory Dwellings are a low-cost, high-yield way to increase the supply of housing in our communities. ALLOWING localities to permit ADU's is a great and easy way to address this crisis. Arlington already allows ADU's and we are seeing new, accessible, small units appear that are great for singles, small families, seniors downsizing to something accessible. They are Wonderful Please SUPPORT SB 304!!!

I believe that local zoning should be left in the care of localities.

I am writing in support of ADUs being a state-mandated opportunity as one solution to housing shortages. There is a shortage of housing to meet the semi-independant needs of elderly people as well as other people underserved by existing housing stock. I am 63, and I took care of my elderly mother for 6 years with most of her belongings confined within a single bedroom of our home. I was not able to economically expand my home to meet her desire to be in a semi-independent space. I wanted, but could not have, an ADU located on my property (as the prefered and least expensive solution) because my lot size is .75 acres, & utilities/land was available). Having her totally alone was not an option due to her health. As a consequence, my mother had to give up the vast majority of her personal possessions and then share all the other aspects of our home with us - which caused everyone some degree of stress from the sacrifice in privacy to both my family and my mother until she passed. I consider this aspect to also be a mental health issue in addition to an aging in place issue, not to mention the implications for more easily providing accessible & compliant living spaces for those with ADA concerns when most existing housing can't be retrofitted for those with disabilities. When my wife and I get elderly and decide to (or are forced to) downsize our home & posessions, both of my adult children have expressed a desire for us to live in close proximity to them & having an ADU adjacent to there home would be the absolute best solution for us to consider as we age, and of even more importance if either my wife or I become disabled in any fashion. The passage of this legislation to enable appropriately constructed ADUs is about providing quality of life & independent living to not only the elderly, but can be applicable to adults of all ages. If a person becomes disabled, then an ADU can provide the semi-independant living needed - with immediately available support, while still providing dignity to those impacted. Other single adults (those just starting out, or who have suffered setbacks in life) often can't afford to rent a full sized home in the current housing market, so their existing choise is limited to renting out a single room in someone else's home. These informal and off-the-radar type of living arrangements come with greatly decreased privacy & security - to both homeowners and the renting adults. Sharing homes in this manner negatively impacts numerous life aspects: mail, physical privacy, meals, laundry, personal safety/security to name a few. ADUs do not suffer from these "room-rental" disadvantages and therefore provide an additional and prefered solution to the gap in housing caused by high apartment rents. ADUs are the next step up from the single room rental market because it serves to protect and separate both owners and residents. Do not accept arguements by NIMBY opponents. The State implementing regulation should set up consistent zoning standards for ADUs (ADU lot size, separation of structures, max ADU size, etc.) and address such community issues as ensuring adequate parking. ADUs should be have supplemental mailing addresses established (e.g. 1517A to indicate the ADU located at #1517). I also support allowing "Tiny Homes" (those designed to be relocatable) of between 200 and 400 SF to qualify as an ADUs. This allows the easy relocation of an ADU should that become necessary.

To the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns: I am a resident of the City of Richmond. I urge you to vote YES for SB304 in support of ADUs. ADUs are an important step towards alleviating the housing crisis. ADUs increase both the density and overall supply of housing, and can impact urban areas where housing is needed most. This not only reduces rent in urban areas, but also reduces the outward push of suburban sprawl. In addition, the small size of ADUs permits for their construction by small businesses and local contractors, as opposed to large, corporate real-estate developers. This keeps resources and money in the community and bolsters the local economy instead of a large developer's profit margin. These are only a few of the benefits of ADUs. Please vote YES on SB304. This state, and moreover this country, cannot afford to cling to backwards, suburbanizing housing policies.

I'm writing strongly in favor of SB 304. The biggest job engines in Virginia can continue to grow the economy in VA, but only if there is housing for everyone to move into for those jobs. SB 304 is a commonsense way to add supply, allowing homeowners to choose how their land is used. It adds tax revenue, re-uses existing infrastructure instead of adding more sprawl upkeep to the books, and can be a part of cooling off the price of shelter in Virginia. Thanks, David Goodenough

ADUs should have the flexibility to be either long-term rentals or short-term rentals. Right now, there are significant conflicts because residential properties appropriate for long-term rental or home-ownership are more profitable as short-term rentals— which isn’t really about ADUs. Barring new construction, mostly by individual homeowners, isn’t going to fix that problem. A simple change, like distinguishing STRs from LTRs based on whether they have a kitchen and prohibiting the downward conversion of housing permitted as residential into STRs, could achieve multiple goals, namely (1) constructing more purposeful short term housing, with built-in locality oversight, (2) freeing up residential properties currently used as STR for LTR and home ownership, and (3) increasing the amount of housing overall. Right now, many homeowners can’t afford to build ADUs whether by-right or otherwise because they can’t pay for themselves on a timeline that makes financial sense. Help us build more housing with flexibility for the future by clearly addressing the distinction between STR and LTR types of housing and regulating accordingly — instead of perpetuating the conflict by assuming all housing is and should be appropriate for LTR and homeownership, then fighting over the use.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are an important part of the housing market. They provide a low-cost option for younger professionals to live in high-opportunity areas and for parents or grandparents to live closer to their children and grandchildren. Virginia's housing market is broken. Prices are too high across the state, which forces people to live in suboptimal housing that requires longer commutes or leave the state altogether. Allowing more ADUs won't completely fix the problem, but it is a great start that will help. I encourage you to vote yes on SB304.

I am writing in support of SB 304. My parents will be growing older and this provides an opportunity to keep them near family but with their independence. An ADU allows them to live nearby family and our community. By supporting this bill you support families everywhere and helps to put a dent into the current housing crisis. There are tons of families in similar situations as well. Please support this bill. Thank you.

My wife and I strongly oppose this bill. We are surrounded by STRs and they are destroying the very fabric of our neighborhood in the 23451. The people have spoken here. Richmond needs to listen.

We need more housing options in Virginia. Rent and mortgage payments are getting too high. Please support SB304 to increase ability for ADUs to be built and provide more options for people seeking housing.

I oppose SB 304 for the same reasons as expressed by my previous comments for SB 544. STRIKE OR FAIL THIS BILL . THE INCREASE IN COMMENTS SINCE WEDS OF THIS WEEK FROM 51 to 249 SHOW THE NEED FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND LOCAL DISCUSSION. MANY PEOPLE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT HOME SHARE!

Last Name: Mottola Organization: N/A Locality: Virginia Beach STRIKE OR FAIL SB544. The bill should be struck from the Counties Cities and Towns Committee. The bill violates the Constitution of Virginia, Article I, The Bill of Rights: Sections 2, 3, 4 and 6. Section 2: People are the source of power. The public spoke loudly and clearly in objecting B.2 in this bill in last year’s General Assembly. Yet that former bill is embedded as B.2, unacknowledged and potentially overlooked by the “reenactment” as stated. This insertion goes against the will of the people. Further, it falsely states that the only addition to the previous legislation is the Registry for Short Term Rentals. Section 3: Government instituted for common benefit. Maladministration occurs when the right of the people is dismissed or legislation is enacted that is misleading, or gives privilege to a “set of men”, in this bill licensed realtors and the owners they represent, giving them the allowance to NOT register: B. 2.(i) No ordinance shall require a person to register pursuant to this section if such person is (i) licensed by the Real Estate Board or is a property owner who is represented by a real estate licensee; (iv) …including licensed real estate professionals… This opens the unregistered sole owner, Trust, Corporation or LLC to anonymously increase density, impact infrastructure needs of the community, avoid fees and taxes, while the people in communities they have helped develop over the years, suffer the consequential problems associated with short term rentals and pay property taxes. This increases the number of Unregistered STRs, a problem cited by many cities, counties and towns. It creates more profits in the realtors’ enterprise. Section 4: “No exclusive emoluments or privileges; offices not to be hereditary. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community”: is violated by the insertion of B.2 (I) and (iv) the “professional“ who may be an owner of many properties: A non-licensed, I.e., a non-realtor who is a property owner applying for a Short Term Rental MUST unequally to the realtor, register, pay an application fee and go through an extensive process to receive approval for a Conditional Use Permit, pay taxes and renewal fees. Section 6: Free elections; consent of the governed. “Home share” rentals have not had enough public discussion to become passed by the state legislature, as in many instances, task forces have not been formed, nor has significant public participation been involved in determining the impact on communities and regulations regarding same. Many people are unaware that “home share” 30 one night rentals exist, as set forth in this bill: "Short-term rental" means the provision of a room or space that is suitable or intended for occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging purposes, for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days, in exchange for a charge for the occupancy. Some cities have worked with the people to determine length of stay, which this bill destroys. Taking away the power of the cities, counties and towns to determine best practices for the people they represent through their elected government is yet another overlay to prevent and take away the right of the people to govern themselves. STRIKE or FAIL SB 544.

As we get older and a home with stairs becomes tough to navigate, availability of ADU's in our neighborhood would allow us to stay in a community we've called home for 30+ years. This is people positive legislature that benefit communities.

I am writing in SUPPORT of SB 304 (Salim), a bill that would allow private homeowners to establish ADU's on their property. This helps address two main issues: 1. There is an extreme shortage of affordable units, even for people who work 40+ hours a week, allowing ADU's would allow for a pathway to affordable units for one or two people, and the turnaround time for these units being available would be relatively short. 2. Rising costs are increasingly causing many families to live month to month in the red, going further into debt. Allowing someone to supplement their income with rental income from an ADU on their property helps the person earning the added income and the person living in the ADU. I live in a densely populated neighborhood in Norfolk and would absolutely welcome ADU's on my neighbors property, even if it were close to my property line. I want to live in the type of community that has a lot of different housing options for all kinds of different people. My community is better off if everyone, regardless of their income, has a safe place to rest their head at night. I SUPPORT ADU's! Please consider doing the same.

Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I am a member of the Town Council of the Town of Vienna, where I have lived for 44 years. The views expressed herein are mine alone as the Town Council has yet to consider a position on SB304. I am strongly in favor of providing affordable housing in Fairfax County, but I strongly oppose SB304. First, it constitutes an obnoxious and unwarranted intrusion into the rights and responsibilities of counties, cities, and towns to fashion their zoning ordinances to meet their particular local conditions. SB304 mandates what every locality in the Commonwealth must do to regulate an issue that is quintessentially local because it literally is in everyone's backyard. In Vienna, we approved a new zoning ordinance that took effect on January 1st after years of debate and citizen involvement. It continues our long-standing law limiting the size of single family residences to 25% of the area of the lot (with an additional 5% now allowed for decks) and continues our long-standing prohibition of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). SB304 would overrule both provisions. As a result, if it becomes law, on July 1, 2025, homeowners in Vienna whose houses already occupy the maximum 30% lot coverage (of which there are dozens, with the potential for hundreds more) would be able to put another residence in their backyard of 1,500 square feet (less about 200 square feet for a required parking space). If they were to opt for a single story unit, they would be able to add a free-standing dwelling that's 30 feet wide and 43 feet long! The result would be lot coverage approaching or even exceeding 40%, which would irrevocably change the look and feel of our little town in a manner that would be totally unacceptable to an overwhelming majority of our voters. Second, the phrase "affordable housing" appears nowhere in this bill. To accomplish such an end, at least in Northern Virginia with our chronic housing shortages, the bill will have to impose rent control on the ADUs - otherwise nothing would prevent property owners from renting them out to the highest bidders for the highest amounts the market will bear, which will price out all those who need affordable housing. Third, it ignores the requests of local governments for the General Assembly to provide us the tools that we know will work to encourage affordable housing in our particular local circumstances, which vary widely depending on where in the Commonwealth they are located. Vienna sits in the Hunter Mill District of Fairfax County which, thanks in large part to the efforts of our supervisor Walter Alcorn, is well on the way to providing thousands of units of affordable housing and could provide even more, but not by anything in SB304. Some have said that SB304 is all right because it contains grandfather clauses for ordinances that exist or will be adopted prior to its July 1, 2025 effective date. However, such is true only for a new ordinance "that substantially complies with the provisions of this section". An ordinance that was in effect prior to January 1, 2024 only survives "if such ordinance does not deem an attached or detached ADU to be a special use". In either case our Vienna ordinance, like the Fairfax County ordinance, would be nullified. I urge the members of this subcommittee to defeat this bill.

I am a lifelong Virginian, who grew up in Reston and Herndon. I’ve lived and worked in Charlottesville and Richmond, and will soon be in Norfolk, and my family is spread throughout Virginia. I currently live in Arlington with my husband. We plan to raise our future family in Virginia. I strongly support this bill, which would permit ADUs throughout the Commonwealth. ADUs put families first. They allow families to gather and support one another easily. Not only do they allow grandparents to age in place alongside their grandchildren, they also allow sick family members to reside with those who love and care for them. My uncle was diagnosed with cancer and passed in 2019. For the last two years of his life, he moved in with my mom, his sister. We cherished those years with him. It was lovely that she had a basement in which he could live. But not every Virginian is lucky enough to have this kind of space inside their homes. And I sometimes wonder how much better his quality of life could have been if ADUs were permitted in their county. A vote for this bill is a vote for families. I strongly urge the House to pass it.

Hello, My name is Jack Williamson, and I am writing as a resident of the Richmond metro area to express my support for SB 304, a pivotal piece of legislation that would legalize accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right. This bill is crucial for enhancing affordable housing options and enabling families within our community to support each other closely. We face a housing supply challenge in the Commonwealth, and increasing our housing supply is essential to ensure folks have the opportunity to reside near employment, family, public transportation, and local amenities. In our Richmond community, the benefits of ADUs were vividly illustrated by my neighbors, the Beasleys. They managed to construct an ADU, allowing them to live more comfortably in their later years while their son, his wife, and newborn took residence in the main house. This setup fostered family closeness and support, a testament to the potential of ADUs to enrich lives. However, it's important to recognize that the Beasleys' success in navigating existing regulations is not a common outcome, primarily due to prohibitive permit fees and restrictive zoning laws that many in our area face. By implementing SB 304, with its directives for localities to permit ADUs, capping permit fees at a reasonable $250, and relaxing unnecessary property and occupant restrictions, we can make significant strides toward more accessible and affordable housing across the Commonwealth. This legislation acknowledges the unique challenges and opportunities we face, proposing practical solutions that will benefit a wide array of residents seeking flexible and affordable living arrangements. Thank you for considering my views on this vital issue. Sincerely, Jack Williamson

I am writing in support of SB 304 As my parents age we need a solution that keeps them close but independent. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) provide a solution for my parents to keep their pride and independence while keeping them close in case of emergency. An ADU allows them to live essentially next door, keeping our family close and fostering a strong connection between them and their grandchildren. By supporting this bill you support my family, and thousands of other families in similar positions. Thank you.

Good morning! As a pastor of an aging congregation, I would urge your support of SB-304 for many reasons. But in particular because it allows for families to provide care for extended family members themselves. This eliminates the financial burden of assisted living facilities, and allows loved ones to live out their days in familiar surroundings cared for by people they know and trust. The cost of senior care is exorbitant, and we have a moral obligation to care for all persons through all of life. Please help us help our families by supporting ADUs. Thank you very much.

Dear Delegate Simon, My name is Sam Butler. We met at the Falls Church assembly two Saturdays ago — I made the comments about being at 1.7°C of global warming right now, and the urgency our moment requires. I am writing to ask that you support accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by advocating for and voting YES on SB 304. Recently passed by the Virginia Senate, this bill enables average homeowners to provide lower-cost housing on their property, and I strongly support its passage in the House as well. SB 304 allows us to take care of our loved ones. It enables average homeowners to provide lower-cost housing on their property in the form of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in their backyard, side yard, or within their existing house. ADUs allow us to house our parents, older family members, children with disabilities, and other loved ones, allowing for comfortable intergenerational living and a greater ability to age in place. SB 304 allows the ultimate local control, enabling homeowners to take care of their own families and develop their own properties. Currently, many of the regulations and rules in place make it impossible for homeowners to have this right. SB 304 is also good for our entire Commonwealth: by allowing residents to build ADUs on their currently existing lots, this bill creates important housing infill opportunities and limits suburban sprawl into Virginia’s natural areas. Moreover, ADUs improve the local economy and property values through increased construction and tax revenue. This is a critical step when it comes to climate action and dealing with the world that is coming. Please support this key legislation, and advocate for it among your peers and fellow delegates. We need to prepare for the world that's coming our way, and this legislation is well designed to do that — giving multiple levels of local control (to homewoners, to municipalities). And ultimately, making the statement that this is work we have to be doing.

I have lived in Little Neck since 1984 and Virginia Beach since the 1970’s. I have 2 children and 14 grandchildren and great grandchildren. We need to build housing in Virginia Beach so our families can have a place to call home. Virginia Beach has become way more expensive over the years and my grandchildren have started to move away as there is no opportunity to purchase a home of their own. Making it more affordable to live here should be our top priority before all our kids move to Raleigh, Houston and Orlando.

While housing affordability is a serious concern for all Virginians, I will focus my comment on the benefits ADUs can provide for the aging population. There is substantial demand for smaller homes for the aging population. For example, there is an age-restricted community with small single-family homes located just behind my neighborhood. I recently learned that there are no single-family homes in that community available for less than $800,000, when one is even on the market at all. That price point is simply not attainable for the majority of Virginians. If a family wants to use some of their property to construct an ADU, they can provide a home for their aging relative, keeping families closer together while retaining the privacy of a separate dwelling. Allowing families to choose to provide for themselves in the way they see fit is exactly the kind of local control all Virginians should respect.

I support YES on SB 304, to give homeowners more flexibility to add an accessory dwelling unit on their property. What a great way to add lower cost, small scale housing, while giving homeowners an income stream. Whether it's providing a home to an aging relative, an adult child, or a renter like a school teacher, ADUs strengthen neighborhoods by homes where people already want to be.

I support SB304. We are in a terrible housing supply crisis. We need the state government to make sure that all localities in Virginia are providing enough opportunity in increase the supply of housing. Providing ADUs across the state is a modest first step in creating housing abundance in Virginia.

We need more housing in Virginia! We are going to create a transportation and infrastructure mess for ourselves if we think we can build farther out from existing housing and solve the problem. We need to be able to create more housing in the places where people already want to live. An easy way to help with the supply of housing is to allow ADUs by right all over the state. Nearly every house that goes on the market near me gets bought and torn down to replace it with a $2 million house. That kind of house is far out of reach of most residents of Fairfax County today. I have friends who have put in double digits of over asking offers and still don't have a house, even with high interest rates. One of my neighbors put their house on the market and had over 50 people come to the open house in the first 30 minutes it was open. The problem is acute and we need to use every tool we have to solve it. Allowing accessory dwelling units by right is an easy way to add a lot of housing to existing areas with minimal changes to the character of the area. I would love to build one on my current property. I have more land than I need and would love to be part of the solution to our problem!

This SB-304 legislation will allow homeowners to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on their properties, providing an affordable housing option for their loved ones. It gives Virginians the flexibility to house elderly parents, relatives with disabilities, college-aged children, and others needing support. It also allows homeowners to supplement their income with rental revenue, making ADUs a win-win for Virginia families and the economy.

Hello, My name is Elizabeth Garrett and I am a resident of Richmond. I am a constituent of House district 79, and Senate district 14. I’m writing in favor of SB304 to legalize ADU units by right. My husband and I own a house with a large garage on it (that we currently use as a shed). We also have 2 kids and are quite tight on time and money! Knowing that we can convert our shed into an ADU without the hassle of special use permitting and with relative ease makes this decision much easier for us. We are considering converting the garage and then renting it out to give someone a nice, affordable place to live in a safe location, and to make some additional income for ourselves. This would help cover the cost of our mortgage, childcare, etc. I believe that this bill is good for residents who are homeowners and for those in search of decent housing, and is a win-win for communities. Thank you, Elizabeth Garrett

My name is Christian Muttart, and I live in the 57th House district, and attend Virginia Commonwealth University. I am writing my support for Senate Bill 304, and I ask that you vote YES on SB 304, as it will legalize much needed accessory dwelling units, or ADUs for short. This bill would give Virginians the ability to provide and live in housing that may be smaller than your typical home, whether it be a converted garage or another structure within the lot of the house, ADUs will allow for greater diversity and price points in Virginia's housing stock. To provide a more realistic example, imagine a college student or a recent college graduate trying to find a place to live in a high demand area, whether it is because of a job, or they want to be close to family or entertainment options. The highest rent they can bear without being rent burdened is $1200 a month, well below the median rent of high demand areas in the state including Alexandria, Norfolk, Arlington, and even right in Richmond, just feet away from the General Assembly complex. ADUs would also allow Virginians to provide housing for those who may not be able to live outside the property of a loved one, like a senior citizen or a child with a disability that prevents them from living a fully independent life, but still wishes a degree of separation. Another benefit of supporting this potentially transformative bill would be that it could be used as a valuable tool to slow or even halt the pattern of urban sprawl that is seen across almost all of Virginia's major urban areas, and prevent the suburban takeover of valuable farmland and natural landscapes that could be better utilized to serve the entire Commonwealth instead of a single property owner. In conclusion, I am advocating for you to vote yes on SB 304 because it will free up Virginia's constrained housing stock, provide more rights for Virginians on what they can do with their properties, and gives Virginians a fairer shot at the American Dream. Thank you for your time.

Anyone who cares about common sense, free market solution to the housing undersupply crisis in Richmond MUST consider legalizing ADUs. With no new land or zoning, we can add low cost housing, especially for loves ones and those who can't afford more. Consider why the ADUs were first banned in 1927, whether those reasons still apply nearly 100 years laters, and whether those decisions are still worth the damage it's doing to our housing market today. Thank you.

ADUs are vital to our needs. My cousins housed their parents in an ADU until their deaths. Amicable divorces can house both parents on the same property with less disruption to their children. To my knowledge Virginia has had to twice enact laws to counteract bad HOA rules: to permit clothes lines and to permit a veteran to display as large a flag as he desired; this would free all HOA properties to build ADUs. As our society ages, the ability for our elders to live both independently and with caring relatives nearby will be a solution that is increasingly appealing. Please pass this bill.

I am writing in support of SB304. Allowing ADUs would strengthen the commonwealth by increasing the housing supply, strengthening property rights, and making it easier for the elderly and disabled to live near their families.

I am writing in favor of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as a part of SB 304. Housing is one of my biggest concerns as a resident of Virginia, and allowing ordinary homeowners to provide additional housing supply is crucial to creating more affordable housing in existing neighborhoods. Allowing ADUs takes advantage of the land that's already been developed and avoids expensive new developments. They're also good for the economy in providing increased tax revenue from existing properties. ADUs also allow homeowners to provide additional housing for family members who might not have the means to live on their own dude to financial or disability reasons. Allowing ADUs is an important part in letting us care for our families, and I believe homeowners should have the right to create additional units on their land as they see fit. Restricting what people are allowed to build is only hurting the people in our neighborhoods and the community at large.

My name is Andrew Bryant. I'm writing in support of SB 304, which would allow for the construction of accessory dwelling units by-right across the Commonwealth. We're in the middle of a housing crisis because there aren't enough homes for people to live in. In order to reduce the increase of rents, reduce homelessness, and make Virginia a better place to live, work, and play, we need to increase the quantity and diversity of our housing stock. This bill is a step forward to accomplishing that. I ask that you support the bill, and say yes to more housing in Virginia.

Support SB304 to create more affordable housing options. The time to act is NOW!

Please support accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by advocating for and voting YES on SB 304. Though I do not personally need an ADU, this option would allow homeowners an affordable, hands-on, and less stressful way to house parents, older family members, children with disabilities, and other loved ones with comfortable intergenerational living and a greater ability to age in place. Thank you.

I write to you in order to speak in favor of SB 304. In addition to enabling loved ones (especially the elderly) to live in close proximity to their families while preserving their independence, this bill restores a fundamental right to citizens by enabling them to use their property as they see fit in a way that does not harm others.

The City of Portsmouth is opposed to SB304 and the substitute bill. We, however,do support legislation that enables us to address the needs of the Portsmouth community. We do not support legislation that reduces the authority of local government to plan and zone. Either version of this bill would impact Portsmouth and require a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. ADUs are permitted in conjunction with a single-family dwelling anywhere within Portsmouth. The City’s Zoning Ordinance already includes standards for establishing an ADU. It is important for Portsmouth to maintain the ability to regulate ADUs in a manner that is appropriate for our community and not be limited by statewide restrictions. We oppose the passage of a bill that includes overarching specific requirements and limitations for ADUs statewide. Furthermore, although ADUs provide additional housing, there is no guarantee that the provided housing will be affordable to those who actually need it. Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development’s 2021 study on the state of the market and local policy of ADUs in the Commonwealth references that oftentimes the tenants of ADUs are family and friends of its owner, which limits who gets the affordable benefits. The study also mentions a beneficial role of the state would be to increase state funding in order to “offer loan forgiveness or tax incentives in exchange for dedicating an ADU as an affordable housing unit.” If the specific standards are removed and the bill simply includes a statewide requirement to allow ADUs where single-family dwellings are permitted, we would be less opposed to the bill. The City is also amenable to a requirement for localities to submit any adoption or amendments pertaining to ADUs to the Dept. of Housing and Community Development annually. This initiative still needs a lot of work. Therefore, we ask that this bill be sent to the Virginia Housing Commission. Thank you.

The North Virginia Beach Civic League OPPOSES this bill as currently drafted. Please continue it to 2025 and refer it to the Housing Commission for further study and input by localities and citizens. Without repeating points previously made, some advocates have stated that this bill would increase affordable housing. HOWEVER at the 12/3/2/23 meeting of a Housing Commission Workgroup, VHC Policy & Research Analyst Jesseca Hoff “provided a literature review on zoning reform and an overview of other states’ methods to promote housing construction through development incentives and local zoning preemption.” Notably, they reported that “5. The benefits of wide-ranging zoning reforms are often not as large as expected, and MANY TIMES DO NOT YIELD MORE AFFFORDABLE HOUSING for low-income households. Rent decreases can occur in limited settings, but LOCAL CONTEXT MATTERS when determining how supply can impact rents in surrounding neighborhoods.” (See Summary for the 12/5/2023 meeting of the VHC Real Property, Community Development, and Best Land-Use Practice Workgroup at https://vhc.virginia.gov/meetings.asp.)

I wholeheartedly support SB304. Virginia, like the whole nation, needs more housing. Building it in this way will help fight climate change, be an economic boon for Virginians in the form of more density and more affordable housing, and will reduce the regulatory burden in our state. I believe that denser housing combats climate change: by letting people live closer to their work, closer to where they shop, closer to their friends, and closer to mass transit. I also believe that the cities and states that build that housing sooner will reap substantial economic rewards in the years to come. Furthermore, I believe that there are many too many regulations in America today when it comes to building things that people need. Some regulations are crucial but many are not. Reframe the question: why should the government be allowed to prevent anyone from building an ADU? Why is it the government’s business at all? Legalizing ADU construction will fight climate change, give Virginia a huge economic leg-up, and reduce the burden of regulation in our state. I support SB 304.

Please vote YES on SB 304 to legalize ADUs statewide in Virginia.

Hello -- My name is Kevin Cianfarini and I am a constituent of House District 79 and Senate District 14. I am writing to express my approval of SB304, which would legalize by right accessory dwelling units. Housing in Virginia, especially in Richmond, has a huge affordability problem. We simply need more housing supply so that people can live close to jobs, family, transit, and amenities. Richmond City legalized by right ADUs last year. As a homeowner I am now considering converting my garage, which currently sits full of useless junk, into an accessory dwelling unit. Doing so would not only help my husband and myself pay our monthly mortgage, but it would also allow someone who otherwise would not have chosen Virginia as their home to pay taxes, shop, work, and live here. Without increased housing supply, we can't expect people to move to Virginia like we want. I stand by Richmond City Council's decision to legalize ADUs and I encourage members of Virginia's General Assembly to do the same. Please vote YES on SB304. Thank you for your time, Kevin Cianfarini

My name is Dane Lauritzen, and I live in your district. I am writing today to ask that you support accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by advocating for and voting YES on SB 304. I live in Northern Virginia, where housing is limited. I can barely afford my current residence, and if my parents or other family needed health assistance, I would not be able to provide nearby housing or assistance to my family. Having access to ADU's would help me to be able to plan for how to care for my family if they suffer an accident or lose physical capacity in some way. Additionally, as a resident I personally see the costs associated with limited housing in Alexandria. Since I moved here I have seen my housing costs rise almost 25% due to limited housing availability. I would not now be able to afford my home, nor can I fault friends and coworkers who live elsewhere due to the high cost of housing. ADU's are an incremental step that Virginia can take to address the housing crisis throughout our state. Therefore, I urge the state to pasv SB304 for accessory dwelling units. Respectfully, Dane Lauritzen

I'm writing in support of SB 304, a bill that holds the promise of bringing our communities closer through the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). This bill is about giving families like mine the opportunity to care for our loved ones right in our backyards, enabling us to weave a tighter, more loving community fabric. SB 304 is a beacon of hope for those of us dreaming of a future where we can keep our aging parents close, offer a stepping stone to adult children, and safeguard our cherished natural spaces from unnecessary sprawl. Voting in favor of SB 304 is a vote for affordable homes, stronger family bonds, and a greener, more connected community.

I am writing to support SB304. ADUs are a way we can help take care of our loved ones. I have three young children and my extended family lives in Michigan. When they come to visit my parents can currently stay in a rec room in my basement, but as my children grow and as my parents age it will become more crowded, and the stairs required to use the bathroom more onerous. We currently have a small backyard that would be perfect for an additional unit should we eventually need one. A small house would also be a perfect place for one of our children to live as a young adult, as housing has becoming increasingly expensive in my area. Having more liberal, and by-right ADU laws would also allow us to rent out the unit as our family morphs over time. Having the freedom and flexibility to use our property to respond to our family's needs would help us financially over time with one of the most expensive parts of caring for a family, which is housing. Thank you! Crystal Passmroe

I know from seeing unhoused people across Arlington and Northern Virginia and feeling the force of high rents myself that housing is not accessible enough in our region and a key part of that is a lack of supply. SB 304 would increase the housing supply without compromising public or individual safety. Please don't let housing scarcity and unaffordability be woven into the fabric of our Commonwealth. Please support SB 304.

Dear Delegate Adele McClure, My name is Adrienne Salyards, and I live in your district. I am writing today to ask that you support accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by advocating for and voting YES on SB 304. I am a soon to be single mother to two young children because my husband has stage IV brain cancer. I think it's very likely I'll need live-in help in the coming years as we adjust to our new circumstances. Being able to build an ADU would make this much more feasible for us. I hope you consider families with needs like mine when you decide how to vote on this bill. Affordable housing starts with making housing abundant. The amount of red tape right now makes it impossible for well intentioned families like myself from doing our part. Let's fix that -Adrienne

Virginia is experiencing a housing crisis. Streamlining the permitting of ADU's unlocks land in our more stagnant single family zoning districts that have seen household sizes decline to meet this problem in a dispersed, gentle way. Our neighborhoods can bear it. All we are doing with this bill is allowing homeowners on their property the freedom to provide an additional unit without the arbitrary forum presented by planning commissions and the like, often which are captured by well-to-do NIMBY's and elitist anti-growth types. This is not so much to ask. In fact, the wider this is allowed it inevitably the less impact it has as ADU's and the market for this housing type is now accommodated in a wider array of neighborhoods. The alternative - in allowing piecemeal permission here or there is to concentrate ADU construction in certain jurisdictions so I make the case this is most properly implemented at a state level. Please do not bow to the vested interests in the municipal powers - they wield too much control over individuals and families when it comes to property rights - let us house each other without their commissions and chambers and grueling delays. Please pass this legislation to the general chamber to decide.

Dear representatives, I'm writing to voice strong support for this bill in favor of accessory dwelling units. Last year I looked into the option of building an ADU in my backyard for an aging family member, but ultimately decided against it because the cost and permitting was too onerous. I would like to have this option in the future. We are in a housing crisis. The ability for local residents to construct appropriately sized structures on their property to add housing units to their communities organically is an easy and logical step to easing this crisis. Please pass this bill that supports ADUs. Sincerely, Riley D. Champine Resident of Richmond, VA

I support allowing ADUs to be built throughout the state. They provide additional affordable housing, can accommodate aging parents or young adults, can be rented out for additional income. I do not support SB544, because I oppose having the state override local land use preferences. The issue of short term rentals must be addressed separately, if at all. Thank you

I'm writing in strong support of the need for ADUs — particularly in Virginia cities, where a severe shortage of housing is driving home prices and rents to record levels, weakening opportunity for everyday Virginians. Approving construction of ADUs by-right would empower homeowners in many ways. It would enable homeowners to offer elderly relatives a safe, healthy place to age-in-place. It would give homeowners a direct way to address our housing shortage, turning an unused garage or shed into a home for workers who drive Virginia's economy. And we know that when individuals and families have secure housing and stable finances, everything else in their lives improves — health, educational outcomes for children, and community cohesion. What's more, in city after city around the United States where ADUs have been permitted by-right — and there are many, with numbers growing daily — the concerns of those troubled by worries around parking or safety have not been realized. Instead, ADUs have provided a pathway toward greater affordability, homeowner choice, affordability, and community stability. We can do this in Virginia, too. Please vote YES on SB 304.

I'm born and raised in the Richmond VA area, have lived here my entire life, and I support ADU by-right. We've lived in the same house in Richmond for 20 years, but as my parents get older, we will likely have to move houses. Not because we want to (we want to stay in our home!) but because my parents can't get up the stairs and it is prohibitively difficult to get permission to build an ADU from the county. We are in a housing crisis with not enough housing units being built and we should do everything we can to make it easier to build housing of all kinds, including ADU's, so that families can stay together and live in place. I urge the house to pass this bipartisan bill and help families like mine stay in our homes.

I moved to Richmond nearly six years ago after graduating college. While I have been fortunate enough to find stable housing every time a lease was up, many of my friends haven't been as lucky. Moving is a stressful time no matter what but it's only made worse with how competitive Richmond's affordable housing market is. SB 304 would help alleviate this problem by allowing residents fortunate enough to own in Richmond to build ADUs on their existing lots to add to the housing supply. Please vote YES on SB 304!

Please vote YES to support legalization of accessory dwelling units statewide. I believe in the principle of individual freedom, and local governments have gone too far in micromanaging land use. Restoring ADU rights will allow homeowners to fully utilize their land to the most beneficial private use, with positive spillover benefits to the rest of us. The economic benefits from allowing ADUs and other forms of more land-efficient housing are immense. This is not an overstatement! Enabling families to provide auxiliary units to accommodate relatives or to provide much needed rental housing stock unleashes real economic resources that are currently locked away by restrictive land use regulations. Speaking as a renter, this would be very welcome. Recent attempts at local ADU reform that failed or were watered down to be merely symbolic due to opposition from small, but loud, groups of wealthy landowners have shown that state-level policy is the only realistic path to reform. For economic efficiency, individual freedom, and for improved housing affordability for all Virginians but especially lower income households, please vote YES on SB 304.

I'm writing to request that you support SB 304, a bill that would allow property owners to build an ADU on their property. I understand the main objections relate to "local control," though as a Dillon Rule state we have very little local control on most topics. Housing issues are fundamentally regional in nature - what happens in Henrico, Chesterfield, and other parts of our region will end up affecting housing prices and availability in Richmond City (where I live). I am also fascinating by the strongly-held belief that people should be able to prevent their neighbors from building an ADU - I think that if you own property, you should generally be allowed to do what you want with it (within reason). ADUs can be built cheaply (an acquaintance said he could build one for about $80,000), which helps with housing affordable for working-class people. Finally, ADUs allow for multi-generational families to live together. For these reasons, I hope you will vote in favor of SB 304.

I urge the House to pass SB304 to help increase housing--and housing options--in Virginia. ADUs permit much greater flexibility in housing options with a very mild increase in density that nonetheless can make housing much more affordable and attainable. Many families will be able to use ADUs to enable multiple generations to live together on the same property. And those who might otherwise struggle to afford a home may be able to rent an ADU or use the rent they collect from an ADU to help pay their mortgage. At the same time, by-right construction of ADUs will also substantially increase the autonomy of residential property owners in Virginia by enhancing their ability to exercise their property rights. Localities should not exercise arbitrary zoning authority to exclude such a safe, common form of housing as ADUs. In addition, while many Virginia residential property owners will not initially elect to erect an ADU, the fact that they have the option to do so in the future--or a future purchaser of their property may do so--is likely to increase residential property values in the Commonwealth. I appreciate that my home County of Arlington allows ADUs, but I wish it had less red tape so that more property owners could exercise that option without having to jump through so many hoops. By limiting the extent to which localities can interfere with property owners exercising their property rights to increase the available housing on their property, SB304 will help other Virginians find the housing options that are right for them.

I urge you to support accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by voting yes on SB 304.   Two neighbors on our block have applied to add ADUs to their properties, and my wife and I hope to convert our garage into an ADU, too. All three of our families have aging parents. We need to solve daunting challenges so our parents can live beside their kids and grandkids, and so everyone can easily take care of each other! In all three houses the bedrooms are upstairs, which sooner or later will not work if our parents live in the main house. Our county’s rules now allow ADUs under some circumstances, but the same is not true for the rest of Virginia.  Localities are hesitant to allow ADUs because local neighbors sometimes object to more cars or to any changes to zoning rules.  However, this need for housing for family members to age in place is a need across the entire state.  SB 304 allows the ultimate in local control by letting homeowners decide how to develop their own property.   Allowing ADUs means families can stay together, creates more infill housing, reduces sprawl, lowers housing prices, and builds more wealth for homeowners.   Thank you for supporting SB 304! Tim Huson

Dear RIP, Jack Wilbern herre and since I now live in your district. I am writing today to ask that you support accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by advocating for and voting YES on SB 304. Recently passed by the Virginia Senate, this bill enables average homeowners to provide lower-cost housing on their property, and I strongly support its passage in the House as well. SB 304 allows us to take care of our loved ones. It enables average homeowners to provide lower-cost housing on their property in the form of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in their backyard, side yard, or within their existing house. ADUs allow us to house our parents, older family members, children with disabilities, and other loved ones, allowing for comfortable intergenerational living and a greater ability to age in place. SB 304 allows the ultimate local control, enabling homeowners to take care of their own families and develop their own properties. Currently, many of the regulations and rules in place make it impossible for homeowners to have this right. SB 304 is also good for our entire Commonwealth: by allowing residents to build ADUs on their currently existing lots, this bill creates important housing infill opportunities and limits suburban sprawl into Virginia’s natural areas. Moreover, ADUs improve the local economy and property values through increased construction and tax revenue. Again, please support ADUs by advocating for and voting YES on SB 304! JACK

Please approve the ADU bill! I believe it would really help to provide value to homeowners as well as add extremely needed housing options for low income, the elderly, students, single folks, etc.

Support property rights, let people build whatever type of housing they want on the land they own.

Virginia is in an affordable housing crisis and ADUs allow for a bottom up solution to this issue. All neighborhoods should have a variety of housing options rather than the disparity we currently experience with most neighborhoods being either full of single family homes or dense apartment buildings. ADUs are a great tool our communities can utilize that is better for our environment, combats homelessness, and makes it easier for localities to allow for the housing we so desperately need.

I am writing in support of SB 304. I recently purchased a home with the hope that some day I might consider an ADU for my parents to move into. My mother has MS and father has dementia. The care requirements for both maladies are intense in both cost and effort. Their living close by while being allowed a space of their own will allow them to live their remaining years with dignity and in a safe environment. I support ADUs not only for this purpose, but also to lessen northern Virginia's serious shortage of housing. Please pass SB 304!

I live in a high cost, densely developed neighborhood in the City of Richmond. The constrained supply of housing has been a major contributor to soaring home prices in this neighborhood. While that's a boon to existing homeowners, it slams the door for younger people and those with lower incomes . We baby boomers won the housing lottery by buying our first homes when prices were still very low (I bought my first house in this neighborhood in 1977 for 30,000 --- prices are now upwards of $1 million). Unfortunately many of us want to shut others out who werent as fortunate. ADU's are a small but meaningful way to increase housing supply and create some affordable homes. Contrary to scare tactics, ADUs do not "flood" neighborhoods, reduce home values or create traffic problems. There are absolutely no studies that show such negative effects. When permitted, the evidence is that only a small number are ever constructed and neighborhoods suffer no detrimental impacts. Please vote for SB304

We have a shortage of housing in Virginia and it's getting worse. The problem is that there aren't enough homes available for all the families who need them, which pushes up the price higher and higher. SB 304 will allow "granny flats" which are an ideal form of gentle density and great for small young families getting started here in VA. Please support this bill and support building more homes for Virginians who are struggling to rent or buy.

Please allow ADUs in Virginia. They can provide useful housing for so many, from providing independence to adult children who stay close to home or aging individuals who want to live near their children, to low-cost housing options that add density to great neighborhoods.

Dear Delegate Delegate Seibold, My name is Keith Henning, and I live in your district. I am writing today to ask that you support accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by advocating for and voting YES on SB 304. Recently passed by the Virginia Senate, this bill enables average homeowners to provide lower-cost housing on their property, and I strongly support its passage in the House as well. SB 304 allows us to take care of our loved ones. It enables average homeowners to provide lower-cost housing on their property in the form of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in their backyard, side yard, or within their existing house. ADUs allow us to house our parents, older family members, children with disabilities, and other loved ones, allowing for comfortable intergenerational living and a greater ability to age in place. SB 304 allows the ultimate local control, enabling homeowners to take care of their own families and develop their own properties. Currently, many of the regulations and rules in place make it impossible for homeowners to have this right. SB 304 is also good for our entire Commonwealth: by allowing residents to build ADUs on their currently existing lots, this bill creates important housing infill opportunities and limits suburban sprawl into Virginia’s natural areas. Moreover, ADUs improve the local economy and property values through increased construction and tax revenue. Again, please support ADUs by advocating for and voting YES on SB 304!

I am strongly in favor of SB 304 and the right to create ADUs. I am a renter in the county and have experienced first hand how difficult it is to find affordable housing. ADUs would provide diversity to rental options and give homeowners the right to earn extra income, so a win win. I would be interested in renting an ADU myself.

Please vote yes on this bill! Virginia has a crushing, appalling, unacceptable housing shortage and accessory dwelling units are one way to start addressing the problem. I am a military spouse who moved to Norfolk because of my husband's Coast Guard job, and we found it extremely difficult to find affordable housing when we moved here. Everyone I know struggles with rent, or has two, three, four, five roommates! Why are we doing this to our young workers and families? Accessory dwelling units could bring much-needed homes to Virginia's job centers. We need state leadership on this issue because the problem is not a local problem. It is a STATEWIDE problem: every city's housing shortage is harming other cities. Please take action now to pass SB 304 and allow accessory dwelling units!

WE ARW IN A HOUSING CRISIS! We cannot emphasize this enough. The states own JLARC shows Hampton roads is short more than 50,000 units of housing. People need a place to call home that is safe and affordable. SB 304 would allow us to make a dent in this historic shortage. Virginia Beach and other exclusionary areas in Virginia have long fought affordable housing and this is no different. Make no mistake, these cities are continuing their legacy of fighting affordable housing. Do not believe what opponents are saying, this bill absolutely does not allow for short term rentals. It explicitly states rentals must be 30 days or longer. I live in an older community with large lots, there is plenty of space for homeowners in my community to build an ADU and rent it out for additional income, or in the case of some, allowing the flexibility that they can move into the ADU and let their children or grandchildren move into their home or vice-versa. This is a property rights issue, homeowners deserve to have flexibility in how to use their property. We need to pass this bill. As a young professional in my 20s I am struggling to afford a place to by myself. Many young people are facing the same problem and this bill will help us out immensely. We cannot allow wealthy homeowners to block young people from accessing much needed housing and affordable housing! We can and must PASS SB 304

I am opposed to SB 304 for the following reasons: 1.) It takes away local control of ADU zoning matters from Fairfax County and other counties, cities, and towns. That’s not FAIR! 2.) The bill could be used as a “Trojan Horse” by Airbnb / VRBO, Virginia Realtors, and Short-Term Rental Hosts to propagate more short-term rentals within our residential communities. NOTE: We already have a problem with illegal (non-registered) Airbnbs in Fairfax County and throughout the Commonwealth. We are tired of the commercialization of our neighborhoods by Airbnb, some Virginia Realtors (and their Associations), and STR Hosts who don’t care about our families and quality of life. All they care about is profiting from our residential neighborhoods as much as possible. 3.) The bill does not require the property owner who wants to establish an ADU to disclose if they are allowed to do so if they live within an HOA with covenants / rules that preclude ADUs. NOTE: Fairfax County is predominantly a bedroom community with over 1,500 homeowner associations - many DO NOT allow for ADUs and residents of these communities want to keep it this way. 4.) The bill would not require counties, cities, and towns to validate with HOAs if they indeed allow ADUs in their neighborhoods. If they don’t and then approve an ADU application in an HOA neighborhood that doesn’t permit them, this will create strife and potential litigation because HOAs were not fully informed about the ADU application earlier in the process. NOTE: Localities should be the first line of defense to mitigate these types of situations to help protect HOA communities, their rules, and their residents wishes. 5.) The bill doesn’t require ADU property owner applicants living within an HOA communities to confirm in advance (with local governments) that their HOA does or does not permit ADUs under their covenants / rules. This is extremely important. 6.) Many jurisdictions like Fairfax County already have parking problems in various neighborhoods because there are already too many adults (not related to one another) living together in single family homes and townhomes (boarding houses) that are monopolizing street and designated visitor parking areas. Adding ADUs will make the parking situations in many neighborhoods worse - including within HOAs. Please defeat passage of this bill. Thank you!

I write in support of SB304 because it addresses an issue that is outlined in the comments against this legislation, localities and property owners will always stand in opposition to infill development and that is why state bills are needed. When given the opportunity to make progress by voting to allow (not require) land uses what owners are able to choose to build with the land they own, we should do so. Most of the opposition centers around density concerns and limiting areas of the cities and localities where this type of development can happen, which is inherently the issue. These areas will start from a place of no and never move off it. The legislation allows for limiting of short-term rentals, parking, development standards etc. in a desire to make this bill more palatable to those who will find a way to deny every application, which whether or not this bill is approved will still happen. So, I write in strong support of the bill to allow for multigenerational living, age in place, affordable housing, desirable neighborhood additions, workforce housing, access to good schools, property improvements and common sense.

Please OPPOSE SB304, Virginia Beach spent three years studying and receiving public comment on STR and ordinances designed to prevent hotelization of neighborhoods. Keep control in the localities!

OPPOSE SB304, localities are in a position to make the best decisions for their community.

I write in opposition of SB304 and SB544 as misguided bills advancing urbane interests at the cost of towns and localities. SB304 and SB544 undermine localities' ability to determine the economic activity and population growth of their communities to address tourism and housing shortages in population dense areas. For this reason, these bills should not advance. Concerning SB304, while certain jurisdictions, such as Fairfax, Arlington, etc... do not have concerns about exceeding Virginia's 3,500 resident threshold prior to having to take on the burden of road maintenance and various other obligations, smaller jurisdictions, as found throughout the majority of Virginia's land area, are prejudiced by SB304's removal of a locality's ability to control its growth and, in turn, ability to maintain quality of life and lower taxation rates for citizens. The thrust of this bill is to address affordable housing and housing shortages, which is not lost on me, the externalities of this proposal place an inordinate burden on small jurisdictions while being something readily and easily absorbed by larger jurisdictions for which the demand for cheaper housing is demonstrably higher. Small jurisdictions are, therefore, burdened with a disproportionate cost to enable large jurisdictions to address their housing issues. SB544, section D, specifically deprives local authority to enforce special use exceptions, ensure uniform administration and quality in accommodations, and tailoring certain commercial uses to a town's constituencies. In preempting these rights, local governments are no longer beholden to their constituencies, special uses are done away with arbitrarily, and the character of towns are entitled to shift with minimal say, input, or restraints of a jurisdiction's constituents. Agritourism is a major industry in the rural areas of Virginia, however, it should be uncontroversial to claim that localities are responsible to and responsive to their constituents. SB544 removes the body of work put in by dedicated volunteers and local officials in tailoring their communities to its constituents in favor of short term rental properties (While carving our equal application of the rules for real-estate agents). SB304 and SB544 make the same fundamental error - they legislate urban policies for a Commonwealth that is not solely urban. In proffering these regulations, local governments are stripped of their ability to oversee and administer their localities growth, development, and economic activity. This leaves small jurisdictions vulnerable to deleterious community impacts, including but not limited to an increase in tax burdens on small communities due to unchecked and unaccountable growth, neutering jurisdictions from ensuring safe, reasonable, and consistent conditions for short term rentals, evisceration of special use and conditional permitting for accommodations, and increasing short term rental capacity which may outstrip or overwhelm local infrastructure compelling additional capital investment and, again, increased tax burden to residents. In sum, SB304 and SB544 are urban proposals to the detriment of rural communities wherein constituencies would have to petition state officials for redress based on short-sighted proposals that serve urban communities but render local government an ineffective bystander.

Opposition to Bill SB304 As the Mayor of Cape Charles we are opposing Bill SB304, which mandates the allowance of accessory dwelling units in single-family zoning districts. Our opposition is grounded in the following concerns: Inconsistency with Existing Standards: The bill's definition of "accessory dwelling unit" creates unnecessary confusion with the Statewide Uniform Building Code, risking inconsistent construction standards. Undermining Local Authority: By overriding local decision-making processes, SB304 removes the community's voice in zoning matters, a fundamental aspect of local governance. Unaddressed Fee Structure: The bill's flat $250 review fee does not account for the full scope of inspection, permitting, and planning costs, setting a concerning precedent for zoning fee structures. Strain on Public Infrastructure: The increased density allowed by SB304 could overwhelm existing public utilities, roads, and schools, without adequate consideration of the infrastructure upgrades required to support this growth. Erosion of Local Planning: Zoning decisions are best made at the local level, where the impacts on community planning, including school capacity and public services, can be fully assessed. In conclusion, while we recognize the intent behind SB304 to increase housing availability, the bill as proposed undermines local governance, community input, and planning integrity. We urge for a reconsideration of this legislation to better align with local government capabilities and community needs. Sincerely, Adam Charney Mayor, Town of Cape Charles

I oppose SB 304. It needs further study, Please oppose SB 304 Thank you.

I oppose this bill. It severely infringes on local control of residential zoning of our neighborhoods

Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I am a member of the Town Council of the Town of Vienna, where I have lived for 44 years. The views expressed herein are mine alone as the Town Council has yet to consider a position on SB304. I am strongly in favor of providing affordable housing in Fairfax County, but I strongly oppose SB304. First, it constitutes an obnoxious and unwarranted intrusion into the rights and responsibilities of counties, cities, and towns to fashion their zoning ordinances to meet their particular local conditions. SB304 mandates what every locality in the Commonwealth must do to regulate an issue that is quintessentially local because it literally is in everyone's backyard. In Vienna, we approved a new zoning ordinance that took effect on January 1st after years of debate and citizen involvement. It continues our long-standing law limiting the size of single family residences to 25% of the area of the lot (with an additional 5% now allowed for decks) and continues our long-standing prohibition of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). SB304 would overrule both provisions. As a result, if it becomes law, on July 1, 2025, homeowners in Vienna whose houses already occupy the maximum 30% lot coverage (of which there are dozens, with the potential for hundreds more) would be able to put another residence in their backyard of 1,500 square feet (less about 200 square feet for a required parking space). If they were to opt for a single story unit, they would be able to add a free-standing dwelling that's 30 feet wide and 43 feet long! The result would be lot coverage approaching or even exceeding 40%, which would irrevocably change the look and feel of our little town in a manner that would be totally unacceptable to an overwhelming majority of our voters. Second, the phrase "affordable housing" appears nowhere in this bill. To accomplish such an end, at least in Northern Virginia with our chronic housing shortages, the bill will have to impose rent control on the ADUs - otherwise nothing would prevent property owners from renting them out to the highest bidders for the highest amounts the market will bear, which will price out all those who need affordable housing. Third, it ignores the requests of local governments for the General Assembly to provide us the tools that we know will work to encourage affordable housing in our particular local circumstances, which vary widely depending on where in the Commonwealth they are located. Vienna sits in the Hunter Mill District of Fairfax County which, thanks in large part to the efforts of our supervisor Walter Alcorn, is well on the way to providing thousands of units of affordable housing and could provide even more, but not by anything in SB304. Some have said that SB304 is all right because it contains grandfather clauses for ordinances that exist or will be adopted prior to its July 1, 2025 effective date. However, such is true only for a new ordinance "that substantially complies with the provisions of this section". An ordinance that was in effect prior to January 1, 2024 only survives "if such ordinance does not deem an attached or detached ADU to be a special use". In either case our Vienna ordinance, like the Fairfax County ordinance, would be nullified. I urge the members of this subcommittee to defeat this bill.

I am a 3rd generation owner of of our home on 88th St Virginia Beach. My wife and I live full time in the house. The North End is a wonderful neighborhood with a strong Civic League and Beach government that listens to residents. We desire to maintain good governance at the local level to insure we preserve the many qualities we enjoy at the public beach. As residents, we do not want nor need new bills from the State Assembly. We have the representatives and local governance we need to insure our public beach will be here for centuries for all to enjoy. These bills are often about enriching a few at the expense of the rest of us, including future generations. It makes sense to allow neighborhood residents to have a input on matters that impact them. I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. At a minimum, please continue it to 2025. The bill needs needs time and input from further study, Please do not advance this bill. Thank you Dan and Jill

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 since it erodes local responsibility over our land uses. Cape Charles has an ordinance for ADUs and state-overreach is not needed.

Vote No. The town of Cape Charles is completely capable of regulating ADU's and STR'S with city officials. State Govt. Controlled regulations cannot be tailored to meet every town/city in in VA. with a one size fits all bill. Again, please vote NO.

I strongly oppose this bill as currently written. It takes away our city’s authority to regulate density and safety, as well as ADUs and STRs.

The City of Portsmouth Strongly Opposes this bill for the following reasons: SB304 (Salim) Zoning; development and use of accessory dwelling units This legislation mandates that localities allow accessory dwelling units in single-family zoning districts: 1. The definition of “accessory dwelling unit” on lines 11-13 differs from the definition that is in the Statewide Uniform Building Code a. The standards for construction review could be different due to this discrepancy. b. Which definition would prevail as the Code is the industry standard? 2. Lines 14-16 take away local authority to determine what uses are allowed in single family zoning districts. a. There is a local public hearing process used when determining what uses are allowed in a zoning district and when there is a request for a special use permit. b. This removes the right of the neighbors to provide input and/or even ask for a buffer for privacy. 3. Lines 17-19 are a fee of $250. a. Does that include the inspection and permit fees for construction, or the site plan review fee? b. All other uses are subject to the fee schedules; why are we treating this differently? 4. Overall – Public Utilities, Public Safety, Roads a. Many Single-Family zoning districts are built with sewer and water based upon the capacity with the number of lots that the neighborhood is zoned for – to potentially double the lots could result in public utilities being overwhelmed and most likely will result in higher fees to upgrade the systems. b. Localities should retain the authority to ensure that their public utilities have the proper capacity. c. This will put additional pressure on public safety, roads and schools. d. The bill does not contemplate the additional traffic and stormwater runoff. 5. Overall – Local Government Authority a. Zoning is a local government obligation and local government authority should not be eroded. b. This additional density is not contemplated in local comprehensive plans or services. c. There will be no mechanism to determine how many new students will be entering the locality and therefore no appropriate planning can occur for school capacity. Furthermore, Portsmouth has existing ADU standards. Localities need to maintain the ability to regulate ADUs in a manner that is appropriate for that locality. Statewide requirements are unnecessary and would not be beneficial for Portsmouth. Please OPPOSE this bill!

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. The Town of Cape Charles already has addressed STR taxes and inspections. Also, after considerable study by a group of citizens, the Town is poised to implement locally-appropriate guidance and constraints. The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. Please Vote No, and do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I am strongly in favor of restricting municipalities ability to control vacation rentals or short term rentals. Local jurisdictions become too emotionally impacted by irrational and unsubstantiated arguments resulting in gross infringement and restriction of property rights. Curtailing my ability to use my property as a short term rental could dramatically limit my ability to occasionally supplement my retirement income.

My name is Leslie Straughan, Council Member and Planning Commission member from the City of Lexington. On behalf of the Lexington City Council, I respectfully request that you vote NO on Senate bill 304. Local governments must retain control of local land use decisions. SB304 was presented to the Senate requiring localities to have an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance, even if that ordinance states ADUs are prohibited. However, that intention is not reflected in the language in section 1.H. of the bill. After a year of review, robust debate, discussion, and multiple public hearings, the City of Lexington has approved an ordinance that allows ADUs to be built in single-family residential neighborhoods in a manner that will not adversely affect neighboring properties. This ordinance also allows the units to be used for short-term rental on a limited basis. Specifically, in SB304, Lexington is opposed to making ADUs by-right. Our ordinance sets standards for new construction, and it allows existing non-conforming structures to be converted to ADUs. This could only happen through a conditional use permit (CUP) with a public hearing since the ADU will not conform to the design standards for new construction. Our ordinance also allows ADUs in neighborhoods which are not zoned for two-family dwellings. Since this will be a significant change, it is appropriate for neighbors to make public comment through the CUP process. Section E.1. is problematic, as well, in that it requires setbacks to be the same as for accessory structures. In our locality, an accessory structure is a garden shed which has a rear setback of 5 feet. Our ordinance requires rear setbacks for detached ADU’s of 15-20 feet, depending on the zoning district, as a buffer for the neighbors and to ensure green space. While increasing housing stock is one of our goals, another equally important goal for our city is increasing green space and tree canopies. SB304 encourages the overbuilding of residential neighborhoods to the detriment of the environment. Our Comprehensive Plan requires that we balance both needs. Also, Section E.1. does not differentiate between the ADU being separate from or within the primary dwelling unit. As a result, an ADU attached to the primary dwelling is allowed to have a setback of 5 feet which means the principle dwelling can now be 5 feet from the neighbor’s property. Currently, our zoning requires 25 feet rear setbacks for houses. This bill is essentially re-writing our zoning for single-family residential districts. This zoning authority should remain in the authority of the localities. Section D.5. allows ADUs to be as large as 1,500 sq. ft. A unit of that size is no longer a “clearly incidental and subordinate” dwelling unit in our community which has many small post war houses. Our ordinance and most guidelines define ADUs as being “clearly incidental and subordinate” structures. While the original intent of SB304 may have been to provide more housing, SB304 will have the effect of significantly altering our existing neighborhoods, eliminating the character of our historic community, reducing our green environment, and negatively impacting community and property values. Again, on behalf of the Lexington City Council, I ask that you vote NO and defeat this bill, SB304. Sincerely, Leslie Straughan Lexington City Council

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

Vote No. The town of Cape Charles is completely capable of regulating ADU's and STR'S with city officials. State Govt. Controlled regulations cannot be tailored to meet every town/city in in VA. with a one size fits all bill. Again, please vote NO.

I oppose bill 304 as cities should have control over short term rentals. Thanks

Vote no to SB 304

SB304 - I oppose SB304. I've lived in the North End of Virginia Beach for over 30 years. State legislation ignoring and overriding local votes for other financial interests to get their way is undemocratic.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs with the current wording. There are concerns about management near Ocean NAS, invalidation of prior ordinances, and application to STRs,

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

Vote no. The town of Cape Charles is perfectly capable of regulating ADU's and STR'S with city officials. State Govt. Controlled regulations cannot be tailored to meet every town/city in in VA. with a one size fits all bill.

The Town of Blacksburg opposes this bill, which unnecessarily restricts local zoning authority.

My wife and I are opposed to SB 304. We retired to 51st Street in the North End of VB after living in the Little Neck section of VB for 30 years. We did not move here to be in a rental community. Our city best knows best how to deal with the STR issue in our neighborhood, and this bill pre-empts local requirements. John Andrew and Donna Richards 300 51st Street VB

On behalf of Virginia First Cities seventeen members in opposition to SB 304. Let me first say that all seventeen of our members are acutely concerned about affordable housing, housing access for all, and finding solutions that work best in their community. They all agree that this is a locally driven process and clearly is not a one-size fits all for Virginia's diversity of local governments. It is with this lens that several of our members have adopted an ADU ordinance after the very necessary public outreach and comment process. They would tell you that their ordinances have been crafted and made better by incorporating public processes. For example, VFC member, the City of Lexington, just last Thursday, 2/15/24, enacted an ADU ordinance. However, several provision in SB 304 would not be supported by the very engaged Lexington community and is simply not the right fit for Lexington. We are opposed to SB 304 and ask that you send it to the Housing Commission for further study.

VOTE NO ON THIS BILL Renting accessory dwellings is one of the only ways that permanent residents can off-set the rising taxes due to rising prices.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 because it pre-empts local authorities from managing local zoning. Land use and zoning issues should always be managed at the local level where the voices of those impacted (in favor or opposed) can be more readily heard.

SBs 304 - I am writing to you asking to oppose this bill. Simply put, removing authority from local governments to control land use and zoning within their boundaries removes the ability for local governments to regulate what is best for their residents. I hope you agree that one size does not fit all.

Strongly oppose SB 304 as it ignores local zoning

The City of Virginia Beach should control its own issues without the commonwealth’s intrusion. I see no reason that this bill should take precedence over our elected representatives’ judgment in these matters. I want them to make and enforce our own ordinances, so please vote against this bill.

I urge you to OPPOSE this poorly written bill, which, whatever its intention, would only serve to preempt local governments' responsiveness to citizen needs and concerns. Localities must retain the right to regulate zoning and safety in their own communities; the state is not in a position to dictate a one-size-fits-all solution. Vote NO!

Please do not vote yes on this bill. We want to have our local government represent the views of our residents. We do not need input on a statewide basis telling us how we should handle short term rentals in Va Beach. We lready have major parking problems with tourists and passing this bill would exacerbate the problem…Respectfully, John L Woods

I strongly oppose this bill as currently written. It takes away our city’s authority to regulate density and safety, as well as ADUs and STRs.

Please OPPOSE this ambiguous and poorly drafted bill which usurps local authority to regulate both ADUs and short term motels (STRs). In particular, the new reference to STRs at the end of paragraph H (the only reference to STRs in this new code section) is vague and ambiguous in how it should apply to short term motels located within a residential neighborhood. The local land use authorities are without question in the best position to regulate local land use issues. This legislation will have many adverse (and unintended) consequences.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs and is unreasonably vague. This bill needs further study, Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 because it provides for a further erosion of local control over land uses. Our town already allows ADUs by-right and applies specific criteria to be met. We don’t require further interference at the state level. Please oppose.

I oppose this bill as presented because it takes away local authority over zoning issues.

I oppose this bill because it takes away the local control of the rental market. Please vote against it.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose this bill. Needs to be less vague. More research is needed.

i oppose SB 304. This is the type of regulation that should be performed at the local level.

I strongly oppose SB 304 for the following reasons: LOCAL authority on STR's and ADU's should not be over-ridden. Vague language content within the bill. The bill needs more study by the Housing Commission and House Committee on Counties, Cities, and Towns. Thank you!

This poorly written bill should be withdrawn. Any bill that takes any Zoning authority from a locality should not be passed. Zoning and Planning decisions are best made at a local level and not by some bureaucrat at a State level. ADU's should be regulated as are any other accessory structure on the property, including outbuildings and treehouses, requiring public input, proper setbacks, and compliance with local building codes. This bill is a blatant attempt to circumvent local governments and their ability to regulate the types of structures that are build in their jurisdiction .

oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill

both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs. This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones and is unreasonably vague.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so.

Strongly oppose SB 304 STRs are being pushed by realtors who do not care about preserving my long standing neighborhood

I strongly oppose SB 304 for the following reasons: LOCAL authority on STR's and ADU's should not be over-ridden. Vague language content within the bill. The bill needs more study by the Housing Commission and House Committee on Counties, Cities, and Towns. Thank you!

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose this bill since it supersedes our local city ordinances regulating STR. This bill is far too vague. As a city, I would want to have our local ordinances control the short term rentals—which are next door to me and down my street. Regards, Pat Law 757-285-8443

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs and STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs and STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs and STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I strongly oppose this bill

I strongly opposed this Bill as a resident of Virginia Beach because it usurps the authority of our local representatives. It is also unbelievably vague. Please delegate Tata continue to vote against this, Bill.

I oppose this bill. The concept needs further study. I want my locality to have decision on this issue. Vote no

I strongly oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

Anyone in support of this should be able to answer a simple question. What need is there for this legislation? Note, this bill overrides the basic rights and obligations of the City of Virginia Beach to control my City. There are City zoning laws There is nothing supporting this bill that shows any need for State intervention into the City's responsibilities. Historically, government closest to the people is the most responsive. That is MY City, NOT the Virginia State Legislature. I request it be voted down. thanks, Martin Waranch

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs.

I oppose this bill which pre-empts local authority. Oceana Naval Air Station requires local safety iniatives, not STRs. Thank you

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

This bill continues a long campaign by commercial interests that refuse to adequately address the legitimate concerns of the North End Virginia Beach Homeowners who have created a Community that is an important part of the history and character that makes Virginia Beach a diverse, thriving and unique city on the East Coast. The bill is vague and destructive to the orderly development that is necessary if the City is to continue to while balancing the needs of homeowners a with STRs and ADUs. The bill should be referred back to the appropriate committee for more careful examination of its potential impact.

In the past, the North Virginia Beach Civic League (NVBCL) Board of Directors has been quite vocal, as well as the residents within their boundaries, regarding legislation that would override or limit the authority of localities to regulate Short Term Rentals (STRs) and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The local government units of Virginia (counties, towns and cities), enforce state and local laws, promoting: · public health · protect public safety · educate children · protect the environment · regulate land use · levy/collect taxes. As a resident of Virginia Beach, I do not understand the benefit to the state by removing housing authority from the local governments. Regulation of STR and ADUs properties is critical for public health and safety as well as revenue generation for local government and the general viability of our neighborhoods. Local level government have effectively managed business permits and licenses, placed caps on rental properties to ensure that neighborhoods remain a true community of locals, and enforced the bans on parties. Keeping this authority at the local level ensures code enforcement officials are aware of properties occupied by owners or by temporary guests to ensure the safety of visitors and community members alike. Allowing local government to govern its localities allows for communities to remain strong; limiting its authority dismantles it. Local governance is a vital tool to guarantee peace, boost economic development, maximize administrative efficiency, and ensure social inclusion and environmental sustainability. With this, I strongly oppose SB 304. As the STR and ADU topics come up in the Senator, I hope you do not forget previous arguments from our community. I kindly ask that you share my email with all members of the STR and ADU work group.

I oppose this bill. It should not be advanced. Localities have the best perspective to manage zoing matters in their communities. Local governments listen to their constituents and enact local ordinances that best reflect those desires. This bill (SB304) overrides local governance and undoes the result of long and thoughtful debate in the community pertaining to Short Term Rentals.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

Please Oppose this bill- I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose this Bill.

I strongly oppose SB304. It reads as vague, it pre-empts local authority on ADUs and STRs. We have the right to expect continuity of current housing, as we have paid premium rates for our homes. Sneaking in bills to benefit profitmakers above comfort of homeowners is dishonest and continues to be a priority of a handful of unscrupulous people in our area.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended. This proposed legislation pre-empts local authority on ADUs and STRs, and is unreasonably vague.

NVBCL OPPOSES THIS BILL. We renew our objection to this bill as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits what requirements localities can impose. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This would invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House CCT Committee did with the (originally) very similar HB900. PLEASE DO NOT ADVANCE THIS BILL.

Issues involving zoning are best left to the locality which is in the best position to understand how any zoning issue affects the local area.

I oppose this bill. Zoning decisions should be made by our elected local authorities.

Vote NO on SB304. Local governments should retain control of local land use decisions. SB304 was presented to the Senate as merely requiring localities to have an ADU ordinance, even if that ordinance states ADUs are prohibited. However, that intention is not reflected in the language in section 1.H. of the bill. Lexington City allows ADUS, however, provisions in SB304 are not supported by our community and would negatively impact property values.

Please DO NOT SUPPORT SB 304 and SB 544. Both bills will severely limit municipality's authority to control local land use, allowing setbacks of only 4 ft. and the accessory dwelling unit could be up to 1,500 sq. ft. Localities have sensible ordinances in place that have been adopted after public hearings with input from our citizens. These accessory dwellings units affect neighboring property owners and exclude input from those properties most affected by the owners. EACH LOCALITY IS BEST SUITED TO MAKE LOCAL LAND USE DESISIONS AND HAVE MADE DECISIONS BAISED ON EXTENSIVE CITIZEN INPUT. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT MATTERS AND ISSUES OF LAND USE BE LEFT TO THE MUNICIPALITIES.

I strongly oppose SB304 and any similar legislation which limits local governments' authority to regulate land use. Zoning is, and should remain, a quintessentially local matter for which state-mandated "one size fits all" solutions are inappropriate. With regard to the specifics of SB304: any expansion of ADUs beyond the original "granny flat" intent opens the door to negative impacts including overcrowding, loss of permeable surfaces, and shortages of on-street parking. Keep in mind that a two-bedroom ADU can in reality end up housing four (or more) adults, each of whom may have a vehicle. The prohibition on requiring consanguinity or affinity between the occupants of the primary residence and the ADU increases the likelihood of the ADU being operated as a commercial rental property, which is not how most citizens who initially favored ADUs expected them to be used.

Zoning is a local function. It is not the place of the Commonwealth to step on one of the few areas of governance with respect to which the Dillon rule affords broad discretion to localities. Most localities where there is any demand for ADUs permit them without undue administrative burden. Development patterns vary from locality to locality, as do preferences. The principle of subsidiarity should apply here. Let the lowest level of government, closest to the actual residents, make these determinations.