Please study the impact of data centers on the land, water, air and people before approving them. Limit them to industrail areas and keep them away from residental areas. We must conserve trees to help protect our land from extreme heat and run off. Trees are extremely valuable.

According to Harvard Medicine, "Noise pollution is more than a nuisance. It’s a health risk." https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/noise-and-health It really doesn't matter the source, the effects range from physical - heart trouble, to psychological - suicidal depression. Please support HB166.

I fully support this bill as written.

In Support of HB 257 This bill will allow localities to make data-based decisions for the betterment of communities, address local health needs and effectively improve long-term access to public health and health care services.

Mandated parking creates wastefully large lots that go underutilized while driving up the cost of housing , increasing untreated runoff, and making my neighborhood much hotter than those built in the traditional development style. The government plays an important role in ensuring buildings are safe and that they don't harm their inhabitants or those around them. Mandating parking goes far beyond that mandate: it is the government regulating convenience rather than safety. We have a housing crisis in Virginia, not a parking crisis. Please pass HB 262

I support HB262 from Del. Simonds and oppose HB888 from Del. Shin. HB262 appropriately removes unnecessary requirements for local businesses that stifle investment by local entrepreneurs. In Newport News alone, after the removal of parking minimums in certain cases, several new businesses in the Hilton historic district have popped up, including a local pizza shop and a local wine shop. Several large vacant parking lots in other parts of the city on Jefferson Ave have been converted to commercial space. Overall, it has been really good for the city, and I'm sure that will continue. HB888, however, over-legislates and unnecessarily complicates this issue. This is an unnecessary government restriction that should not exist. There is no logical reason to continue to lay out various cases for restrictions when the benefit is clear, and it is clearly not the role of the government to dictate parking to businesses. While it may be an OK medium-term step in changing existing legislation, I see this half-measure as over-complicating a simple issue.

I support HB 262 to prohibit parking requirements. Parking mandates are well understood to stifle the building of homes and businesses because they significantly add to the cost of construction and take up land that could be used for other purposes (e.g. more housing). The increased cost of building housing is often passed on to the renter or resident, increasing the cost of housing. Parking mandates cost cities money, too, by increasing impermeable surfaces and runoff, generally increasing the amount of streets and roads per capita, and resulting in more liabilities for the city. This bill is a critical part of a larger effort to reduce car-centric city design and emphasize dense development with reliable transit opportunities for all residents.

Removing parking mandates is not only pro housing but it's also pro business, pro environment, and pro historic preservation. Local businessowners, homebuilders, and property owners should have flexibility to decide what parking makes sense for a specific site. They are more attuned to the markets need for the amount of parking and in fact more incented to build the right amount of parking than government is. Parking mandates are frankly made up relic of the 1950s and government should get out of the way to regulate something that the market clearly can do right. In Falls Church, a city of 2.2 square miles - we relaxed parking requirements for small businesses and within 1 year, 15% of the applications were small businesses able to open because of relaxed parking requirements. Imagine that across the Commonwealth. We've received no complaints about the lack of parking or overflow onto streets because the reality is there is plenty of parking available - even in a dense community like Falls Church - and this makes way for more creative solutions like shared parking arrangements and better curb management. We will not be the first to modernize parking - Richmond, Newport News, Roanoke, Charlottesville and even Onancock VA have done it. Other states have done so across the US - it even passed unanimously out of the House in North Carolina last year and their Senate is poised to take it up. And the results across the county show that the market responds accordingly - it doesn't get rid of parking - it just gets rid of the mandates. Parking still gets built, but not too much such that it makes way for more housing, more businesses, more green space and trees.

Support

I support HB262. Minimum parking requirements are arbitrary numbers that hinder urban development and perpetuate a car-centric pattern of land use that is hostile to those of us who travel by foot, bike, and public transit. Parking is expensive, and building less or no parking can make affordable housing and small businesses financially viable when the cost of parking lots or decks would be too high and take away valuable space from buildings. If there is a need for parking, developers are able to determine how much is appropriate without restrictive mandatory minimums. Richmond ended parking minimums in 2023, and there is still plenty of parking here (in many areas, too much parking). Let's encourage land use that benefits people, not cars!

While serving on City Council in Richmond, VA, I led our effort to eliminate parking requirements citywide. This process was lengthy as it took almost 3 years to explore the impact and create the ordinance that eliminated this outdated requirement. Truth is, Richmond studied 50 development projects and totaled the parking required for each building which was just under 8,000 off-street spaces. Those 50 projects built more than 13,000. While everyone complains about parking, truth is there were more than 5,000 built than was required. But the reality is that a requirement creates restriction and possession. Because each project is required to build parking, it can serve only their use. By eliminating a parking requirement, we can not explore shared parking options and creating public benefit for places that parking is needed. Not parcel by parcel or project by project. This is an outdated policy that isn’t addressing the problem. I’ll end with this question: has our existing parking requirements ever made our parking problem better? Just like building another lane on the highway isn’t going to fix traffic either. It’s time we look forward to the need to build more housing and not let outdated policies increase costs of construction or have great sites for development that are currently surface parking lots sit empty at night because they support an antiquated and outdated parking policy from the 1970’s.

I write in support of HB262. As a resident of a city which purposefully increases the cost of development (and thereby increases the cost of living) with minimum parking requirements that have not been changed since the 1960s, the removal of such requirements is one of my highest priorities. Minimum parking requirements are not meaningfully supported by any urban planning study, unnecessarily increase development cost, and are the result of racist planning practices implemented in the 1960s to prevent integration. Localities which have removed minimum parking requirements have seen increases in development, likely because parking spaces can costs thousands of dollars per space. As these parking minimums were created haphazardly in the 1960s, and often haven't been reviewed since, they often make little sense. For instance, here in Falls Church, the installation of a two pinball machines may require a parking space per the city's code. Eliminating such minimums would make navigating local requirements easier for developers and local businesses by eliminating confusing and outdated parking code sections. It should be noted that removing parking minimums will not be the end of parking. Instead, rather than having the government approve of a formula for parking, private persons can determine the need for parking at their property. This allows developers to consider the parking needs of their community before having to invest thousands of dollars into parking, and prevents the parking surplus which currently saps the development potential of cities in Virginia.

Please save Virginia from over-parking and support HB262. Currently parking mandates, many of which are left over from racial segregation, are destroying our great commonwealth. They are making housing more expensive, prohibiting new small businesses from opening, and serve no one. Thank you.

I stand with VCDL on these bills.

Hello, my name is John McVey and I’m a resident of Vienna, Virginia. This morning, I’d like to make a statement in support of the HB277-Wireless Infrastructure Bill. Residents of Vienna, Virginia (including within the Town of Vienna), have become far too accustomed to poor mobile coverage. This issue has been present for years and residents and business owners have had enough. Just in Vienna alone, there are four elementary schools that are considered mobile dead zones for AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile – these include: Our Lady of Good Council, St. Mark, Holy Comforter, and Wolf Trap Elementary. Since 2020 there were at least 10 emergency situations on the OLGC campus that were exacerbated by the lack of mobile coverage – for instance, faculty were unable to reach EMS services when a student had a seizure during class, or the police couldn’t be reached when a suspicious person had entered the campus. Outside of school, parents are very frustrated by not being able to reach their children while they’re in Vienna. A local online petition in Vienna has tallied nearly 1,000 signatures in support of resolving this issue. Numerous local businesses within Vienna (for instance, restaurants, banks, grocery stores, pharmacies) have all reported business impacts due to poor mobile phone coverage. For example, a local fast-food restaurant reported that AT&T customers cannot transact and pay for their food using their mobile wallet. This impacts not only local business revenue – but also taxes revenue for both Fairfax County, and Town of Vienna meals taxes. Resolving this issue is essential to maintaining safety and security in Vienna and all communities in Virginia. I’ll end with this and the focus back on school campuses…. poor mobile coverage is a well-known problem in Vienna specifically around schools, this is a significant concern for parents especially given the tragic frequency of school campus incidents happening across the United States. I look forward to the passage of this very important bill. Thank you.

Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands.

Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy.

Please support HB 388/SB89, we need the additional support in removing dangerous invasive plants. Public lands are the least maintained, allowing for more spread quickly.

Hello, my name is Renee Kitt, and I'm a constituent from Fauquier County. I'm writing today to ask you to vote YES on HB109 by Delegate Holly Seibold, YES on HB88 by Delegate Amy Laufer, YES on HB388 by Delegate Katrina Callsen, and YES on SB163 by Senator Ryan McDougle. Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing about Mr. Michael J. Webert's efforts to address this critical issue. I would like to add that we the volunteers that are out in our communities doing the hard work of invasive species removal in your yards, our parks and plant native plants need more help. If we had the support of the state, improved laws pared with our grass roots efforts, the education of the community just think what we could do. Please help us continue to work toward invasive species management across Virginia.

Hello, my name is SharonMoore, and I'm a constituent from [Your Charlottesville, VA. I'm writing today to ask you to vote YES on HB388 by Delegate Katrina Callsen. Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing about the efforts to address this critical issue.

Please vote Yes on this bill.

I submit this written testimony in strong support of House Bill 388, which amends § 15.2-2403 of the Code of Virginia to include the control of invasive plants among the authorized powers of service districts created within a locality. This change would allow local service districts to raise funds and implement targeted programs to identify, manage, remove, and prevent the spread of invasive plant species in their areas. I work in the re-wholesale plant industry, where I witness known invasive or toxic plants sold daily to retailers, landscapers, and consumers across Virginia. In my daily operations, I handle DCR-listed invasives—aggressive species that outcompete native plants, destroy biodiversity, ruin habitat for pollinators and wildlife, degrade water quality, and cause widespread ecological harm. These plants spread through commerce, landscaping, disturbed sites, and unchecked planting, often overwhelming local ecosystems and requiring expensive ongoing control efforts that strain budgets. HB388 empowers communities by letting service districts (which already handle services like stormwater, parks, or beautification) add invasive plant management to their toolkit. This means localities can create dedicated funding mechanisms—via special assessments or fees—to support removal projects, native restoration, education, and prevention in targeted areas like neighborhoods, parks, or rights-of-way. It's a flexible, grassroots approach that complements state-level efforts (like those in HB109, HB88) without mandating one-size-fits-all rules. To maximize impact, districts could prioritize native alternatives, including regularly available seed blends specifically blended for native biodiversity and site-specific management (e.g., Virginia-ecotype mixes for erosion control, pollinator habitat, or disturbed soils). These blends—already accessible through suppliers like Ernst Conservation Seeds, state DWR programs, or regional natives initiatives—offer sustainable, low-maintenance solutions that stabilize land, boost wildlife, and reduce long-term costs compared to letting invasives take over. I'm choosing to support this bill because I want to save our environment rather than continue profiting from these plants. My industry gains short-term from selling invasives (many ending up in local landscapes that fuel spread), but the ongoing devastation of Virginia's native ecosystems, farmland, water resources, and natural heritage isn't worth it. We can't keep letting profit drive ecological destruction. I urge the committee to report HB388 favorably (with or without amendments) and advance it to a full House vote as soon as possible. As a trade insider seeing the problem up close every day and willing to forgo profits tied to harmful species, I believe empowering local service districts with invasive control authority is essential for effective, community-driven protection. Thank you for addressing invasive plants through innovative local tools.

I support this bill because I believe "this is our big chance to create a reliable funding stream to save our trees and natural areas."

Hello, my name is Clover Carroll, and I'm a constituent from Crozet I'm writing today to ask you to vote YES on HB388 by Delegate Katrina Callsen. Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing about your efforts to address this critical issue.

I fully support this bill as it encourages and enables local municipalities to address and remove invasive plants which are currently taking over the wildlands in Virginia and all throughout North America. Addressing the ever-worsening problem must be done as soon as possible to stem the tide, and this bill would only do good.

I too support the passage of HB 388, expanding the public service districts by giving local areas more tools to effectively manage invasive plants. Please vote YES

I support the passage of HB 388, expanding the public service districts by giving local areas more tools to effectively manage invasive plants. Please vote YES

I support the inclusion of the term “ control of invasive plants” in this legislation. These noxious plants cause considerable damage to our cherished natural environment, without providing any benefit. I can see trees and shrubs being destroyed in my locality. Thank you.

Hello, Please vote YES on HB388 by Delegate Holly Seibold, Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy. I am presently working on the removal of invasive plants on my own property. This is something that is very important to me, my friends and my neighbors. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Margaret Carter

I am writing from Midlothian to urge you to support HB388/SB89. Expanding the powers of local public service districts to include invasive plant treatment and control will greatly improve the ability of localities to address this costly and damaging problem.

Please support this bill and allow localities to make their own choices about whether they want to allocate funds to fight invasive species. The insects that support our food chain and that of all wildlife are declining at an alarming rate. The loss of insect habitat is one of the main reasons for this decline. Removing invasive plants allows the native plants that insects require to reemerge. This is vital to life on earth. However, it requires significant resources. Many people volunteer every week to pull and kill invasive plants but they are not enough to win the battle. This job requires more manpower. Thank you for your consideration, Constance Chubb

I support HB 549. Trees are essential for slowing climate change and providing shade in our increasingly hot summers. Too many developers have no profit incentive to preserve or replace trees, leaving neighborhoods barren and treeless and increasing temperatures, energy costs, and heat-related illnesses for citizens. Privately owned mature trees have benefits that reach far beyond property lines, from the comfort and safety of pedestrians passing under their shade to the cooler temperatures they bring to the whole neighborhood. We need tools to stop developers from clear-cutting these public resources--let's allow our local governments the power to conserve trees for the good of the community and the climate!

Please study the impact of data centers on the land, water, air and people before approving them. Limit them to industrail areas and keep them away from residental areas. We must conserve trees to help protect our land from extreme heat and run off. Trees are extremely valuable.

The Richmond Tree Stewards urge you to support HB 388. By expanding the powers of public service districts to include invasive plant control, this bill would allow localities to take the steps they deem necessary in their areas, having a beneficial environmental and economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole, including on its trees. Trees have positive impacts across a variety of realms, including environmental, public health, economic, and infrastructure arenas. Trees are not a luxury; they are in fact critical elements of infrastructure. Trees mitigate urban heat, manage stormwater, and improve water quality. Invasive plant species are one of the primary threats to trees across the State of Virginia. Certain invasive vines (such as kudzu, wisteria, Japanese honeysuckle, and English ivy) can kill even mature trees in a variety of ways. They may twine up them, strangling them; shade them out; or their weight may break branches and even snap off the tops of trees. Similarly, invasive shrubs blanket forest understories, smothering the next generation of oxygen-providing trees. Definitionally, invasive species do environmental and economic damage. Nationally, invasive species are estimated to cost the US over $120 billion annually. This bill would make it possible for local jurisdictions to take more effective action on this important issue. Please support HB 388.

Environment Virginia is a non-profit organization with thousands of members across Virginia. Managing invasive species and protecting native pollinators and wildlife are priorities for us and our members. We thank Delegate Callsen for introducing HB 388 and express our support for it. We want more nature in Virginia where wildlife can thrive, clean water can flow and old trees can grow. Invasive plant species get in the way of this. English ivy covers entire portions of the James River Park system, trail crews are overwhelmed by kudzu on the Appalachian Trail, and farmers cannot keep up with the Callery pear trees spreading rapidly throughout the Shenandoah Valley. Not only do invasive species cause a headache for anyone managing land, they outcompete native plants. Native plants are pollinator powerhouses and feed Virginia’s more than 400 native bees. Our mountain mint is a favorite during a monarch’s migration. Our white oaks are habitat to countless critters. And our gorgeous Virginia bluebells have festivals dedicated to them. Stopping the spread of invasive plant species is critical to protecting Virginia’s wild spaces and wildlife. Stopping the spread of invasive species starts at the local level. Service districts are a powerful tool local governments can use to provide additional services and managing invasive species should be one of the services they can provide. HB 388 is a small change to the law that would provide localities a powerful tool for managing invasives. Please take action on invasives and vote YES on HB 388.

I strongly support HB388 because invasive plants are one of the most persistent and damaging threats to Virginia’s natural ecosystems, yet local communities often lack the authority and tools needed to manage them effectively. Invasive species like English ivy, kudzu, and others outcompete native plants, weaken trees, degrade wildlife habitat, increase erosion, and undermine long-term forest and park health. Once established, these plants are extremely difficult and costly to remove, requiring ongoing maintenance rather than one-time intervention. In my own community, I have seen these challenges firsthand through the restoration of the future Ernest Road park site in Southside Richmond. The property was completely overtaken by invasive species — particularly English ivy — which had smothered native vegetation and stressed mature trees. While restoration work has begun, invasive plant control will be a continuous effort for the life of the park, as new growth and re-invasion are constant threats shared by natural spaces across the Commonwealth. HB388 helps address a major barrier to this work by allowing service districts to control invasive plants within their boundaries. Expanding this local authority will make it easier for communities to respond quickly, coordinate maintenance, and protect investments in parks, tree canopy, waterways, and habitat restoration. Invasive species management is not optional if we want healthy forests, resilient parks, and functioning ecosystems — it is ongoing, essential infrastructure work. HB388 provides a practical, commonsense tool to help Virginia communities meet that challenge.

I support the passage of HB 388, expanding the public service districts by giving local areas more tools to effectively manage invasive plants. Please vote YES

Please support HB 388. Currently in PWC, there are no dedicated funds to remove invasive plants. These vines, shrubs and trees damage and kill native plants that provide food and housing to wildlife. It is much more cost effective to be proactive instead of reactive. When trees fall, streams flood, and wildlife moves into neighborhoods and roadways to search for food, the County and residents will pay for clean up and fixing any problems that arise.

Please support this bill. Invasive plants have completely infiltrated our parks, forests, and backyards. Bird's cannot reproduce with these invaders. If you support wildlife and our ecosystem make sure this bill passes as other states are doing. It's way overdue.

I strongly support limiting invasive plants in our state. Please restrict their sales and usage.

As an avid gardener training to become a Henrico Master Gardener I can attest to how disruptive invasive plants are to our native ecosystem. They take over yards, spreading into adjacent yards and provide little to zero beneficial impact to native insects and wildlife. Requirements for invasive species should be kept to containers only with acknowledgement of continuous management to ensure the plant does not spread by ground.

Please vote yes on House Bill 388. As a Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) certified Master Gardener in Fairfax County, I have seen how invasive vines such as English Ivy kill mature native trees, often resulting in damaged infrastructure. And I have witnessed the tangible difference in native growth/ foliage once volunteers have cleared out invasive vines and plants. Invasive plants do not provide food or adequate habitat for our much needed pollinators. Our local jurisdictions across the Commonwealth do not have sufficient budgets to effectively tackle and manage the invasive plants crisis. HB388 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants in our communities. Thank you for your service and dedication to improving the quality of life in our Commonweath.

Yes!

I am active in the local native plant society. The Northern Neck is over run with invasive such as English Ivy, Privet, Russian Olive, Japanese Honeysuckle and knotweed. Without the ability to knock these back, fewer and fewer native species. A survive, and the surrounding water quality will continue to struggle. Please pass this!

Invasive species are expensive. Estimated economic losses due to invasive species in Virginia may be as high as $1 billion annually. Local governments foot the bill for downed trees, degraded stream channels, wildfires, roadside maintenance, and removing invasive plants from parks, playgrounds, and schools. ● Invasive plants harm infrastructure. Examples include clogging of important waterways, increasing stormwater runoff and erosion, infiltrating sewer lines, and causing expensive maintenance and repairs for various structures, from power lines to buildings. ● Invasive plants destroy local tree canopy damaging and leave a tangled mess that can prevent birds from nesting, pollinators from nectaring, and wildlife from accessing water and food. A SIMPLE SOLUTION: EXPAND POWERS OF SERVICE DISTRICTS Local governments should be provided with the tools to raise necessary funds to manage and control invasive plants that affect their communities. ● The Code of Virginia (§15.2-2400) allows for Public Service Districts that provide localities with the authority to “provide additional, more complete or more timely services of government.” ● Currently, the powers of public service districts include managing water, sewerage, garbage removal, beautification and landscaping, and control of infestations of insects and other pests, among many listed services. ● A simple change to add control of invasive plants to the listed powers of service districts (§15.2-2403) would allow localities more flexibility to effectively manage invasive plants by enabling collaboration among neighboring jurisdictions, and establishing dedicated local funding sources.

I encourage the passing of this bill especially as it applies to invasive plant control. Non-native plants are eroding our native habitats which affects ecological resources needed for wildlife to thrive.

According to the Virginia Mercury, ivasive plant species cost Virginians over $1 Billion annually. Please adopt HB388 to allow Invasive Plant Species to be added to the Service District language so there will be a reliable means of funding to deal with this growing issue at a local level. Thank you for your consideration, Katherine Johnson City of Fairfax Resident.

Comments Document

As a member of the public, a volunteer for Fairfax County IMA, the president of Wild Ones Nova I support HB388. I have spent hundreds of hours removing invasive vines from public lands, my own private property, and HOA property. Invasive pants pose a serious environmental and economic threat to Virginia, the United States and the world.

Per the Virginia department of forestry, invasive species cost our state over $1 billion per year. Anything we can do to reduce this cost is beneficial. It will cost money to remove invasive species, but it is worth it both financially and environmentally.

This bill is important in that we need to control the invasive plant sales in Virginia! Other states have made this change effectively!

I want to encourage support for this bill to build on the progress we’ve made in Virginia in raising awareness of the deleterious effects of invasive plants and continue advocacy for those programs that enable control and removal.

Please add invasive plants to the service districts list to allow localities more flexibility in addressing the damage to our environment that nonnative species cause. I volunteer to remove invasive vines that are killing our trees. Volunteer labor alone barely makes a dent even though we are well organized in Fairfax. More options are needed for control. This bill provides localities a good opportunity to make progress in saving native plants that are the bottom of the food chain for our native insects and birds and other species. Thank you.

On behalf of Nature Forward, please support and vote "yes" on HB388. This enabling legislation would provide locales another financial tool in their toolbox --establishing dedicated local funding sources-- to address the problem of nonnative, invasive plants. The Public Service Districts code currently allows localities to raise money for several specific issues, such as managing water, sewerage, garbage removal, beautification and landscaping, and even control of infestations of insects and other pests. Explicitly including “control of invasive plants”, as this bill proposes, offers the opportunity to establish a dedicated funding mechanism to address the problem of invasive plants, a problem that has been festering for decades. In my personal capacity, I lead invasive plant removals in Fairfax County parks and see this problem literally growing and spreading every day. Despite supporting a strong Invasive Plant Management Area program via its Park Authority, Fairfax County and other localities simply need more resources to fight this growing problem. Threats to our biodiversity and health of our ecosystems, such as invasive plants pose, ultimately hurt us, through threats to our tree canopy, crops, waterways, and so on. This problem of invasive species is also costly, with estimated economic losses due to invasive species in Virginia as high as $1 billion annually. The cost to local governments from invasive species includes dealing with downed trees (from the "prone to falling down" invasive Bradford pear trees to otherwise healthy trees assaulted by invasive vines such as English Ivy, Oriental Bittersweet, or Porcelainberry), degraded stream channels, wildfires, roadside maintenance, and removing invasive plants from parks, playgrounds, and schools. Please vote YES to HB388.

“Hello, my name is Irina Smirnoff, and I’m a constituent from Vienna ( Wayside HOA) I’m calling today to encourage James Walkinshaw to support legislation that enables control and removal of invasive plants. In particular, I am asking for support on HB388/SB89. Currently, localities can establish Public Service Districts to manage water, sewerage, garbage removal, beautification and landscaping, and even control infestations of insects and other pests. A simple change to add control of invasive plants to the listed powers of public service districts would allow localities the flexibility they need to effectively manage invasive plants by establishing dedicated local funding sources.” Please support HB388/SB89. Thank you!

Please support House Bill 388. Invasive vines kill mature native trees, often resulting in damaged infrastructure. Invasive plants do not provide food and adequate habitat for our pollinators. Local jurisdictions do not have enough funds to effectively tackle the invasive plants crisis. HB388 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants in our community. Vote yes on House Bill 388.

Support HB 388. Support local governments in funding invasive plant control. Invasive plants are expensive: Invasive plants harm infrastructure & destroy our tree canopy. Local governments should be provided with the tools to raise necessary funds to manage and control invasive plants that affect their communities.

HB 388 will establish one essential tool for organizing, funding and focusing the battle to save our native species of plants and pollinators from the aggressive imported species that threaten our landscapes and our agriculture. It updates current law to give local governments power to address the serious and growing biological threat from that was not envisioned when the statute was written. As other supporters have also commented, invasive species are a primary driver of biodiversity loss, causing significant harm to ecosystems, economies, and human well-being while contributing to 60% of documented extinctions. Thank you in advance for moving this forward-looking legislation toward final passage.

I am writing in support of legislation to eliminate/manage invasive plants. Invasive vines kill mature native trees, often resulting in damaged infrastructure. Invasive plants do not provide food and adequate habitat for our pollinators. Local jurisdictions do not have enough funds to effectively tackle the invasive plants crisis. HB388 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants in our community. It is critical that we as taxpayers provide funds to manage/eliminate invasive plants.

Please support HB388, to give localities the necessary flexibility to address the problem of nonnative invasive plants more strategically and efficiently. Speaking as a watershed group that tracked more than 1,000 volunteers donating 2,556 hours of stewardship at 104 stewardship events within the Holmes-Tripps-Cameron Run watersheds in 2025 -- most of which involved addressing nonnative plants in our watershed's green spaces -- we can attest to (a) the damage caused to our streams, stream valleys, parks and communities by invasive weeds, which criss-cross all land use types and therefore require a more holistic approach to management, and (b) the level of constituents' concerns about this problem in their neighborhood. If both 'beautification' and 'pest' (e.g., insect) management are considered appropriate rationales for establishing service districts under the code of Virginia, then surely the code should be further clarified to enable service districts for managing nonnative plants that undermine said beautification efforts and harbor said pests. Furthermore, when loss of plant biodiversity goes unchecked within a local ecosystem, it’s not just local habitat or pollination that’s affected, it’s also stormwater management, nutrient recycling, water purification, pest control etc. A July 2024 report by the National Bureau of Economic Research [https://www.nber.org/papers/w32678] found that localized species loss has two impacts, i.e.: it reduces both the productivity of an ecosystem function AND its resilience to further species loss. We're currently in a situation where any future losses of biodiversity will have increasingly large economic effects. The good news is: The on-ramp to improving biodiversity is so much shorter than, say, generating new clean energy sources or changing the transportation system. Progress can be immediate, and anyone can take part. Please provide localities with the means to provide leadership in addressing the spigot of nonnative invasives in our communities. Building back biodiversity helps all of our vital ecological services (not just habitat): SWM, clean air/water, less heat islands, temperature regulation, filtration, carbon sequestration, etc. Thank you for your attention.

Please vote in favor of HB388. Trees are working so hard to fight climate change, including by helping to provide shade, reduce stormwater runoff, reduce pollution, provide habitat for wildlife, improving mental health and many other positive actions. You can't drive anywhere in Virginia without seeing the devastating impact that invasive vines are having on the health of our trees. It is overwhelming to understand that millions of these hardworking trees are at risk of being killed by invasive vines. It is critical that localities get funding to address this issue . This bill provides an easy way to fund the important work needed to help protect our trees and it does so with a de minimis impact on homeowners.

Thank you for your service to Virginians. I am writing to ask you to Please support House Bill 388/Senate Bill 89. Invasive vines kill mature native trees, often resulting in damaged infrastructure. Invasive plants do not provide food and adequate habitat for our pollinators. Local jurisdictions do not have enough funds to effectively tackle the invasive plants crisis. HB388/SB89 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants in our community. Vote yes on House Bill 388/Senate Bill89. Thank you

Please support House Bill 388. Invasive vines kill mature native trees, often resulting in damaged infrastructure. Invasive plants do not provide food and adequate habitat for our pollinators. Local jurisdictions do not have enough funds to effectively tackle the invasive plants crisis. HB388 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants in our community. I have seen the difference in our community's foliage once the volunteers have removed invasive plants. Vote yes on House Bill 388.

Please support House Bill 388. For the love of our natural areas, invasive species management must become a priority. I’ve been removing invasive plants to save our native vegetation in various Northern Virginia parks for over ten years now and have seen first-hand how these invasive plants degrade previously productive landscapes. State and local budgets are underfunded and these governments often rely on volunteers, like me, to help with their restoration efforts. But volunteers come and go—and are few and far between—resulting in too few of us available to manage the acres and acres of infested wild areas. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a leading UN body, reported in 2023 that invasive species are a primary driver of biodiversity loss, causing significant harm to ecosystems, economies, and human well-being while contributing to 60% of documented extinctions. With bird populations down by three billion since 1970 and reports of the alarming insect apocalypse, promoting healthy public landscapes is imperative. HB388 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants in my Northern Virginia community. Please vote yes for HB388. Thank you.

Please support House Bill 388. Invasive species in general are harmful in many ways and local governments do not have the funds to control them, many rely on committed volunters and communities to help rehabilitate infested areas. Invasive species replace native plants, which upsets the food web and provides less healthy food for birds, fish, butterflies, and other wildlife. They destroy native habitats and makes it harder for forests to grow back naturally. They cause some animals and plants to lose their food and homes, which can lead to extinction. They lower the variety of plants, which is important for healthy forests. They can smother and strangle trees and other plants, making it hard for them to grow. They reduce water quality by causing more erosion, filtering water less effectively, and weakening tree stability. Weaker tree stability affects the tree canopy. They block sunlight and kill aquatic plants, reducing food and oxygen for fish and other aquatic life. They change the soil in a way that stops other plants from growing. Invasive vines kill mature native trees, often resulting in damaged infrastructure, homes, vehicles. Eradicating invasive vines is a huge, seemingly never-ending task and many local governments are highly reliant on the work of committed volunteers to make a dent. Drive almost any highway in the state and you can see the stark damage done by invasive vines. Walk through neighborhoods and see similar damage in our parks, open spaces, and backyards. Invasive species—plants, animals, and diseases—cost the United States about $120 billion every year (Pimentel et al. 2005). They cause problems in farming, forestry, fishing, and infrastructure. Invasive species damage recreation opportunities for residents and visitors by degrading natural areas resulting in decline of birds, fish, butterflies and other wildlife. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) 2023 Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account, provides an overview of the significant economic impact of outdoor recreation in Virginia (https://apps.bea.gov/regional/ORSA/pdf/ORSA%20-%20Virginia.pdf): that outdoor recreation in Virginia generated $13.4 billion in value added, accounting for 1.9% of the state’s GDP. This thriving sector also supports 122,405 jobs, underscoring its crucial role in Virginia’s economic landscape. Please support HB 388.

I urge you to support House Bill 388. Invasive vines have taken over vast areas of Virginia, destroying views, covering the landscape and impoverishing the natural vegetation that wildlife depends on. As a decades-long volunteer working to control these invasive plants, I can tell you it is heartbreaking work and impossible to achieve make any progress without serious support from public agencies. This problem is growing worse very quickly. It's a simple question: Are we willing to support efforts to save Virginia's natural beauty and health. Please vote yes on House Bill 388.

Please vote in favor of HB388. We estimate that there are three million trees at risk of being killed by invasive vines in Northern Virginia alone, not to mention the understory in our woods which is becoming an impenetrable mass of invasive shrubs. It is predictable that unless we do something about this, by the end of the century, many and probably most of our remaining natural areas will have imploded, as the trees come down and are not replaced. Addressing this will require a huge effort on the part of all landowners, which notably includes the park systems that currently only have funding to address maybe 10% at best of their land. It only gets more expensive the longer we wait, so creating a a funding source now is a wise investment.

I very strongly urge that HB388 not clear the subcommittee of the Counties, Cities, and Towns Committee. This legislation is ill-considered and extremely poor public policy for many reasons. First, its expansion to include "jurisdiction" over "invasive" plants is a gross and unprecedented attempt to misuse the public service districts for purposes far beyond the purposes for which they were created. Second, this virtually limitless (certainly undefined) expansion poses the risk that the Government's power will be misused not only to address an issue of questionable importance (compared, e.g., to medical care, affordability, law enforcement, children's health, etc.) not only on public property, but also on private property -- raising the specter of the "Plant Police" forcibly removing plants that the homeowner may actually prefer for landscaping, and which poses no public threat, whatsoever. Third, the expansion of "jurisdiction" would bring with it an explosion in costs (and/or at the expense of other programs that actually fall within the original purpose and ambit of the public service districts), which will impose yet more financial burden on homeowners who are already stretched to the breaking point. It is truly ironic that legislation to address "invasive" plants (a term which is eerily reminiscent of pejorative terms for humans not indigenous to this area or members of the ethnic groups that abused and subjugated the indigenous peoples) will, itself, create an invasive and improper government authority (that is also of questionable legality). Please do the right thing -- do not allow this abominable piece of government over-reach to leave the Subcommittee.

I am a Virginia Master Naturalist and Tree Steward, and I volunteer many hours of my time removing invasive plants and vines. I have tackled many infestations that were so severe that they completely engulfed the native trees and shrubs. Our county's natural resources staff provides whatever resources they can, but staff and budget are very limited. What's more, new invasives are arriving all the time. These plants out-compete native plants for light, moisture, and space. The populations of insects, mammals, and birds that require the nourishment of specific native plants (which are disappearing) are in decline. Native bees are more important to the ecosystem than imported honey bees, and the native bees are in also decline. Native wildlife is needed to keep pests in check, but our ecosystems are completely out of balance. As many have noted, trees that are smothered by vines grow weak and fall. Please adopt this bill so that we can get help trying to control these unwanted plants. Thank you.

In regards to providing funding source for control of invasive plant species...one only has to drive any of our roads and streets to see that our trees in Virginia are COVERED with invasive vines that will eventually kill them and damage our ecology. PLEASE help save the trees! Vote yes for Bill 388.

I am a retired wildlife biologist. I spent a good chunk of my career working on endangered species issues. I have seen first-hand how invasive plants can takeover species' habitat and render it uninhabitable. I am also a Virginia Master Naturalist. Every year Master Naturalists, myself included, along with many other volunteers spend tens of thousands of hours removing invasive species. And, we are no match for the invaders. I implore you to add control of invasive plants to the listed powers of service districts (§15.2-2403). Adding this to the listed powers would allow localities more flexibility to effectively manage invasive plants by enabling collaboration among neighboring jurisdictions, and establishing dedicated local funding sources. Thank you

I am writing to urge you to support House Bill 388. Invasive vines and plants are killing mature native trees across our communities, often leading to damaged infrastructure and increased public safety risks. These invasive species do not provide adequate food or habitat for native pollinators, further weakening our local ecosystems. I have seen the damage invasives have done in my own backyard of Loft Ridge Park in Fairfax County. Local jurisdictions simply do not have the funding needed to effectively address the growing invasive plants crisis. Without a sustainable solution, the problem will continue to escalate and become more costly over time. HB 388 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants, allowing communities to protect native forests, support pollinators, and prevent avoidable infrastructure damage. This proactive approach will save money in the long term while strengthening environmental resilience. I respectfully ask for your support of House Bill 388. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Please support House Bill 388. Invasive vines kill mature native trees, often resulting in damaged infrastructure. Invasive plants do not provide food and adequate habitat for our pollinators. Local jurisdictions do not have enough funds to effectively tackle the invasive plants crisis. HB388 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants in our community. Vote yes on House Bill 388.

Please support House Bill 388. Invasive vines kill mature native trees, often resulting in damaged infrastructure. Invasive plants do not provide food and adequate habitat for our pollinators. Local jurisdictions do not have enough funds to effectively tackle the invasive plants crisis. HB388 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants in our community. Vote yes on House Bill 388.

Please vote yes on HB388. Invasive vines kill mature native trees, often resulting in damaged infrastructure. Invasive plants do not provide food and adequate habitat for our pollinators. Local jurisdictions do not have enough funds to effectively tackle the invasive plants crisis - we are rallying as many volunteers as we can, but we cannot keep up. HB388 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants in our community.

Please support House Bill 388. Invasive vines are a problem throughout Virginia. They kill mature native trees, eliminating the benefits they provide, including shade, carbon capture, pollution reduction, and food and shelter for native animals. Tackling the invasive plants crisis requires a coordinated effort and a dedicated revenue source for the effort, both of which HB 388 provides.

Please vote YES on HB388. I am a homeowner in Northern Virginia, and we all have much to gain from service district(s) to help fund the control of invasive species. The whole area needs to be dealt with, as surrounding untreated areas will continue to be a source of more non-native plants. This is not only a state issue, it's national. I am a member of the Virginia Native Plant Society with friends locally and throughout the state who understand the seriousness of this problem. Please Vote YES on HB388. Sincerely, Donna Murphy

Please support House Bill 388. I have spent countless hours removing ivy and other vines from trees in Northern Virginia and now in my new home, Norfolk. It is hard work, but necessary for tree health and to support our local pollinators and birds. We need more support! Invasive vines kill mature native trees, often resulting in damaged infrastructure. Trees are also key to dealing with rising waters as they absorb thousands of gallons of water. Further, invasive plants do not provide food and adequate habitat for our pollinators. HB388 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants in our communities. Vote yes on House Bill 388!

Invasive plants threaten our ecosystem and their removal needs to be included in the powers of service districts. Vote yes on House Bill 388

Please support House Bill 388. Invasive vines kill mature native trees, often resulting in damaged infrastructure. Invasive plants do not provide food and adequate habitat for our pollinators. Local jurisdictions do not have enough funds to effectively tackle the invasive plants crisis. HB388 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants in our community. I have seen English Ivy totally envelop my entire neighborhood choking trees and eliminating and any native plants. We really need our elected officials to do something about this or our entire native ecosystem will be lost. Vote yes on House Bill

Please support House Bill 388. Invasive vines kill mature native trees, often resulting in damaged infrastructure. Invasive plants do not provide food and adequate habitat for our pollinators. Local jurisdictions do not have enough funds to effectively tackle the invasive plants crisis. HB388 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants in our community. I have been volunteering with the Fairfax County Tree Rescuers and have seen this problem first hand. We have spent hundreds of hours rescuing trees from invasive species that are killing our natural habitat. It is a never ending job and we need legislation to help eliminate the root cause of the problem rather than continuing to band aid the problem. Vote yes on House Bill

I am a homeowner within the Wayside development in northern Vienna and we border Tamarack Park, which follows Difficult Run. The area had been farmed many years ago and as the land laid fallow tulip poplar trees grew and then the land became filled in by many varieties of invasive plants. The forest floor in the park is nearly 100% covered by invasive plants that are preventing germination and/or growth of hardwood trees. Please support House Bill 388 to help mitigate this problem as even maintaining public paths in the park has become problematic due to the aggressive growth of the invasive plants.

I am certified as a Master Gardener in Fairfax County, VA, and am active in our local Master Gardener group. I also am on my street’s (Whitman Road, Annandale, VA) Board of Directors, and have been designated the “Master Gardener” for our HOA. I’m also a member of the Fairfax Invasive Removal Alliance. On my own street, which I have lived on for over 35 years, I have seen invasive vines overtake our “common areas,” killing river birch and other trees that have grown along a creek, and making use of the common area by our community difficult. The expense of addressing this problem is significant. I have led volunteer efforts on our street, but the extent of the vine growth requires professional help. PLEASE pass this legislation to help HOAs with common areas address this huge problem. The park lands in Fairfax County also greatly suffer from invasive vine growth, killing trees. I have volunteered to help address this problem in park lands, but it is so pervasive, we need dedicated funding to get it under control. Thank you for considering my views.

As a constituent of Delegate Shin, I ask that you support House Bill 388. Invasive vines are rampant in our area; they kill mature native trees, and smother out native species. Invasive plants do not provide food and adequate habitat for our pollinators. Local jurisdictions do not have enough funds to effectively tackle the invasive plants crisis. HB388 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants in our community. Please vote yes on House Bill 388.

Please support House Bill 388, which is a common-sense effort to increase access to resources for invasive plant management by local jurisdictions in Virginia. Invasive plants are a serious problem in our state and around the world. Invasive species of all types (including insects and vertebrates) are estimated to cost upwards of $120 billion of dollars nationally and more than $1 billion in Virginia (according to the VA Invasive Species Working Group) as the result of damage to property, agriculture, native ecosystems, and beyond. Invasive species are one of the top five drivers of biodiversity loss. In our region, rapidly growing invasive vines can quickly smother trees and other native plants, leading to loss of mature trees, stunted forest regrowth, and biological "deserts" devoid of the rich native biodiversity that was once present. Mature trees provide significant value to our communities related to reducing intense stormwater runoff, improving water infiltration into the soil, and providing food and habitat for beloved wildlife. On the other hand, invasive plants have also been associated with other undesirable pests: for example, scientists have found evidence that Lyme-disease carrying ticks are abundant around invasive barberry shrubs. English ivy also creates idea habitat for disease carrying mosquitos. Many local jurisdictions struggle to find the resources needed to slow and reverse the spread of invasive plant species. HB388 would provide access to dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants, empowering local communities to address this growing problem. Please vote yes on House Bill 388, and please support other efforts to manage invasive species in our state. The longer we wait to act, the more challenging these problems will be. I thank you sincerely for your time and consideration.

Please support House Bill 388. Invasive vines kill mature native trees, often resulting in damaged infrastructure. Invasive plants do not provide food and adequate habitat for our pollinators. Local jurisdictions do not have enough funds to effectively tackle the invasive plants crisis. HB388 creates the possibility of a dedicated revenue source for managing invasive plants in our community. I am a 30 year member of the Virginia Native Plant Society and the fight against invasive plants cannot be won without more support. Vote yes on House Bill 388.

Comments Document

I am writing to you both as a constituent and as a co-founder of Fairfax Invasive Removal Alliance (FIRA). We at FIRA ( https://firaadvocacy.com), have talked to our Fairfax County Supervisors about the need for a unified, comprehensive plan for invasive plant management. While a consultant has been hired, it is clear that whatever recommendations get made, funds will be needed. Our budget—and that of many other jurisdictions in Virginia— does not provide for a reliable funding source for invasive plant management. Meanwhile we are facing tremendous tree loss and diminishing pollinator populations through the state. Please support HB388, https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB388/text/HB388 which would amend the Virginia code on service districts to include invasive plants. This would provide the opportunity for localities like ours to have a reliable funding source for invasive plant management, and thus be able to more effectively tackle the critical invasive plants problem Thank you! Wendy Cohen, with Rekha Dolas FIRA Founders/Organizers

I stand with VCDL on these bills.

Chair Askew, and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Samuel Hooper, Legislative Counsel for the Institute for Justice (IJ), a Virginia-headquartered nonprofit law firm that works to protect civil and economic liberties, including property rights. Through strategic litigation in courthouses and advocacy in statehouses, IJ’s Zoning Justice Project seeks to reform restrictive zoning and land-use regulations that limit housing supply, drive up costs, and infringe upon private property rights. For too long, restrictive zoning laws have artificially constrained housing supply in Virginia cities, driving up costs and limiting options for both homeowners and renters. HB 611 tackles this problem by legalizing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in residential single-family districts. This bill restores basic fairness to land use regulation by allowing homeowners to make reasonable, low impact use of their property while still adhering to clear rules. ADUs provide a market-driven solution to the housing shortage in Virginia, offering lower-cost rental housing without the need for government subsidies or taxpayer funding. By making it easier to build ADUs, HB 611 will help to alleviate pressure on housing markets and reduce rental costs across the state. When homeowners can create additional living spaces on their property, it provides more housing opportunities. Families will have greater flexibility to accommodate aging relatives, provide independent living spaces for young adults, or generate rental income to offset rising housing costs. Virginia has long been a leader in protecting property rights and limiting government overreach. HB 611 continues that tradition by ensuring that regulations do not stand in the way of homeowners who wish to build ADUs on their own property. The Institute for Justice urges the committee to advance this important legislation. Sincerely, Samuel Hooper Legislative Counsel Institute for Justice Telephone: 202-956-8390 shooper@ij.org

The North Virginia Beach Civic League (NVBCL) opposes any state legislation that: - Compels localities to allow Short-Term Rentals (STRs) or Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), - Limits the ability of localities to regulate STRs or ADUs, or - Overrides local authority for land use or planning as pertains to STRs or ADUs. NVBCL supports state legislation that gives incentives, authority, and/or funding to localities to increase housing inventory, including with ADUs and other affordable or attainable housing, without pre-empting local authority for land use or planning.

Comments Document

The North Virginia Beach Civic League (NVBCL) requests amendments to this bill. We support expanded availability of ADUs, including in our neighborhood, within a reasonable framework that preserves authority of localities to regulate zoning and land use and that does not needlessly pre-empt local authority. We would support this bill with the following amendments: 1. Modify paragraph B to encourage (rather than require) localities to allow ADUs in more single family districts as one of multiple strategies to increase housing inventory and affordability, as would be accomplished by HB804 and SB488 (which we support), without requiring localities to make ADUs a permitted use in all single-family districts - some of which are already densely developed and/or do not have sufficient infrastructure (e.g. water/sewer/stormwater management) for increased density. 2. Modify paragraph E.5 to strike “only at the time that an application is submitted to construct or convert an accessory dwelling unit.” 3. Strike paragraph F.1, or at least modify it, so that localities can require dedicated parking in districts where on-street parking is already limited, such as in districts with smaller lot sizes that are already densely developed. 4. Strike paragraph F.2 which conflicts with the allowable rear or side setback requirement in F.3. This is a fire safety issue, particularly in already densely developed neighborhoods. 5. Modify paragraph F.3 to allow localities to restrict ADU height to 75% of what would be allowed for the primary dwelling.

Portsmouth supports HB679, the legislation provides an additional enforcement tool for the City to address uses that become both nuisance and public safety concerns to neighboring properties and owners.

As a resident and concerned citizen of rural Disputana, Prince George County,(House Dist 82) I strongly opposed to this and all proposed legislation that seek to undermine or override local authority on decisions about land use. I strongly urge you to respect the voices of the people in communities across the Commonwealth and vote NO on HB711 & HB 981. The people, through our duly elected officials, must retain the right and the responsibility to make decisions regarding land use at the local level without interference by politicians from outside our rural communities who have no knowledge of, or interest in, local concerns.

As a resident and concerned citizen of rural Greensville County, I am opposed to this and all proposed legislation that seek to undermine or override local authority on decisions about land use. I strongly urge you to respect the voices of the people in communities across the Commonwealth and vote NO on HB711. The people, through our duly elected officials, must retain the right and the responsibility to make decisions regarding land use in the communities where we live.

Vote NO on HB711 Our planners, supervisors, and zoning authorities work together to plan and develop our town/county on our behalf. It is an extreme overreach for our state government to interfere with this process.

HB11 - This bill seems like a veiled takeover of local government. So the state would have jurisdiction over where solar facilities would be placed with local communities subject to their decisions. Some places like Washington County would end up being forced to deal with solar facilities without any way to protect the land and way of life we enjoy. Our homes would decrease in value, our properties would be negatively affected all so Northern Virginians can have more power. Our elected officials should be able to decide where and if we want solar facilities here based on the voice of the locals. Without state interference.

I strongly oppose this bill, and respectfully ask that legislators vote in accordance with the citizens who elected them. Every Virginia county has had ample time to experiment with the gimmick known as solar, and have witnessed the environmental destruction, lack of revenue, and declining electrical production. Every one of them have serious stormwater violations. This is why so many wise counties have created our own guardrails from this deplorable industry desecrating our lands. That is why we have zoning regulations, for property rights end when our industrial neighbor's actions violate ours! To make each county have to make a case to the SCC to justify a local denial is communistic, and a waste of valuable resources. Definitely an overreach attempt by the State into local governance, and we will not stand for this!

I oppose this bill. Localities should be able to say what goes into their communities.

I oppose this bill. Please help protect our rural lifestyles and life blood from state overreach by people who either don’t understand or don’t care about our land and our way of life. Just because our population is low relative to other counties and definitely poorer shouldn’t mean that outside influences and interests should control our land and our resources and our future. PLEASE vote no on this and any other bill that can force unwanted solar projects on rural communities. Solar projects are industrial production facilities and absolutely not agricultural production.

There is no way this legislation benefits local jurisdictions or our rural. largely farming community. I oppose.

I oppose this bill. No outside interests should undermine local interests or zoning approval.

I oppose removing local control over land use policy.

I strongly oppose HB711 and im asking for you to oppose it also. Our county governments should be in control because it allows its residents to voice their opinion on such matters. If solar is allowed and no county government has the authority to stop them they will take land away from farmers who depend on that land to rent because it’s there livelihood and there is a lot of environmental impact that comes along with developing these solar fields.

I stand with VCDL on these bills.

I’m asking that this bill be denied. Counties have the right to decide what’s best for the county. The state needs to respect the right and decisions of the residents and the local government.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I respectfully urge you to reject this bill, which would allow a state agency to override a locality’s decision to prohibit or limit utility‑scale solar facilities. This proposal undermines the most fundamental principle of Virginia governance: land‑use decisions belong to local governments, not Richmond. Counties and cities are closest to the people, most familiar with their land‑use plans, and directly accountable to the residents who must live with the long‑term consequences of large‑scale energy projects. Stripping localities of that authority sets a dangerous precedent that reaches far beyond solar. Utility‑scale solar facilities are not minor zoning matters. They involve thousands of acres, heavy industrial infrastructure, long‑term land conversion, and significant impacts on farmland, forests, water resources, and rural character. Local boards evaluate these projects through comprehensive plans, public hearings, and community input. When a locality determines that a project is incompatible with its land‑use goals, that decision should be respected — not overturned by a distant agency with no stake in the community. This bill also creates an uneven and unpredictable regulatory environment. Developers, landowners, and residents all benefit when the rules are clear and locally administered. Allowing a state agency to overrule local zoning invites conflict, litigation, and uncertainty for everyone involved. Virginia has long recognized that energy development must be balanced with local planning, environmental stewardship, and community values. This bill abandons that balance. It elevates the interests of large energy companies over the rights of counties and the people who live in them. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Subcommittee to defeat this bill and preserve the integrity of local land‑use authority in the Commonwealth. Thank you for your consideration.

I strongly oppose this bill. It is yet another attempt to circumvent local zoning power in favor of a blanket one size fits all approach to regulating and siting industrial solar projects. Please keep in mind that rural counties such as Page are already struggling with undesirable predatory development and need autonomy to make the best LOCAL decisions regarding land use based on available productive farmland, the preservation of their scenery/rural character and siting/sizing of ANY future development according to their Comprehensive Plan. Please do not remove that authority and hurt counties that may not be familiar to those living in urban settings. Our rural land is important to us!

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/all-dominions-solar-plants-failing-their-energy-promises/?fbclid=IwVERDUAPoP61leHRuA2FlbQIxMABzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAwzNTA2ODU1MzE3MjgAAR7vAOR0Kw_VSju6rEXaxKzWAAvbcLrdtORL_aXeN1CZ7IA0LOoiMRMZaQ-EqQ_aem_plyHOJaHk9tzb3LHo_ohLA

VOTE NO TO THIS BILL! This bill pushes ordinances onto the county that may not be sufficient in every case. Localities need to retain the right to site their ordinances for every unique situation. SOLAR IS NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL SITUATION. Solar clears many acres of trees and farmland. Solar is notorious for DEQ VIOLATIONS!

On behalf of the Sierra Club Virginia Chapter, I urge support for HB711. The bill establishes clear, statewide criteria for local solar ordinances while preserving local authority over project approvals. Standards cover: 1. Where projects go: setbacks from homes, neighbors, and community sites. 2. How projects look: fencing, project height, lighting, and scenic protection. 3. How land is managed: soil conservation, stormwater management, and pollinator-friendly vegetation. 4. Decommissioning: mandatory end-of-life plans with dedicated funds. 5. Workforce quality: competitive wages and apprenticeship opportunities for Virginia workers. This Solar Standards Bill offers a balanced fix: it standardizes local siting rules so projects can be proposed statewide, while preserving full local authority to approve, deny, or modify any individual project.

I strongly oppose this bill. Local government should be making the decision for any industrial solar project. No outside interest should undermine local zoning approval.

This misguided bill strips counties of decision-making authority. Solar companies are notoriously insensitive to the quality of life of rural residents. They go for maximum profits, with inadequate setbacks, placing solar factory panels and large substations very close to people’s homes. How would you like to live 50 to 150 feet from one of those? They do not have sufficient restrictions on storm water run off, with well documented negative effects on adjacent properties. In Page County, where I live, a factory was approved. (Dogwood Solar). The required engineering report by Racey Engineering stated that wells as far as 10 miles away could be at risk. This included the water sources for the town of Luray. The solar company, Urban Grid, subsequently withdrew the project. They also withdrew the application for another (Cape Solar), likely because of setbacks required by the Planning Commission to preserve quality of life and the insistence that the panels be classified as impervious to control run off. These commonsense requirements added to the potential cost, a deal breaker for companies that put profits above people. The piece of land in the latter (Cape) application was hit by a tornado last year. Damaged panel components and metals would have found its way into the many caves and uncharted underground waterways that characterize this region (home to Luray Caverns) for a potentially devastating event. Please do not pass this bill. It will negatively affect rural counties. County governments are best positioned to address the needs for safety and quality of life and they should retain their authority.

I oppose this legislation because it undermines local land-use authority and unfairly advantages solar developers at the expense of community planning and agricultural preservation. By requiring localities to justify adverse zoning decisions to the State Corporation Commission and placing those decisions in a public database, the bill creates pressure on local governments to approve solar facilities—even when they conflict with comprehensive plans or local land-use priorities . Applying this framework to agriculturally zoned land is especially concerning. Agricultural zoning exists to protect working farmland and rural economies, not to serve as a default location for long-term energy infrastructure. Ground-mounted solar facilities remove land from agricultural production for decades and should remain subject to robust local review. I urge rejection of this legislation to preserve meaningful local control.

Strongly oppose this bill. Any decision on county solar projects should be made by local legislation in that county, not at the state level or any outside county group. How in the world is it fair to allow people from/living in counties miles away, decide if solar farms should be approved in a county they do not live in/have any tie to. This bill punishes folks who live in/are from rural counties by allowing an “outside the county” board/group of people, who have no ties to the community, land, legislation, etc. in the rural county, approve a solar farm to be built.

STRONGLY OPPOSE HB711. Keep local zoning decisions local.

I strongly oppose HB 711, which undermines local self-governance & threatens rural Virginia’s way of life. This legislation represents state overreach by stripping localities of meaningful control over large-scale solar development & prioritizing corporate interests over community needs. Rural Virginians deserve the right to decide what is built in their own backyards. I urge you to vote NO on HB 711. Key reasons this bill is harmful: • Erosion of Local Control: Standardized criteria limit localities’ ability to tailor rules to their unique landscapes and values. Rural communities must retain full authority to approve or reject large solar projects. • Threat to Farmland & Heritage: Allowing ground-mounted solar by right in agricultural zones accelerates productive farmland loss, raises land costs, displaces family farms, and weakens Virginia’s agricultural economy. Local governments must retain authority to protect this critical resource. • Inadequate Environmental Safeguards: The minimal setbacks from roads or property lines & permissive land-disturbance standards fail to adequately protect wetlands, streams, forests, & wildlife. Large solar installations risk soil erosion, water pollution, & habitat loss, & localities need stronger authority to prevent irreversible damage. • Karst-Specific Risks: In the Shenandoah Valley’s fragile karst terrain, characterized by sinkholes, caves, & direct surface-to-groundwater connections. Large solar installations pose severe & potentially permanent risks. Altered subsurface hydrology could trigger sinkhole formation or collapse during or after construction. Inadequate stormwater management may contaminate groundwater as runoff infiltrates voids or sinkholes, threatening nearby drinking water wells. Underestimated impervious surfaces or incorrect soil assumptions could result in excessive runoff that exceeds karst-adjusted limits, requiring costly redesigns or leading to system failures. Missing geotechnical studies, such as dye tracing or borings, leave pollutant pathways unknown. These high-severity risks require stricter local oversight, not statewide minimums that fail to account for karst vulnerabilities. • Damage to Property Values & Rural Character: Massive solar arrays threaten scenic landscapes, reduce nearby property values, deter tourism, & erode the peaceful, open character that defines rural VA. Local governments are best positioned to protect natural beauty & community quality of life. • Economic Burden on Local Communities: While out-of-state developers benefit financially, rural taxpayers bear long-term risks from decommissioning failures & limited local economic returns. Communities should retain the right to negotiate or reject projects that impose long-term costs without meaningful local benefits. • Risk to Historic and Cultural Assets: The bill’s vague visual-impact provisions provide insufficient protection for rural historic sites, scenic byways, & cultural landmarks. Local governments, with firsthand knowledge of these assets, must retain zoning authority to prevent their degradation. HB711 weakens the principle of local governance that sustains VA’s diverse communities. Rural areas with sensitive geology stand to lose the most from this centralized approach, which fails to account for long-term environmental & community impacts. Please stand for Virginians by rejecting this bill & preserving every locality’s right to shape its own future.

I oppose HB711, please vote No against a bill that interferes with local government decisions.

I urge you all to oppose any and all legislation in regards to industrial solar and battery storage that takes the power away from localities to decide what is best for them. More specifically HB711. I look out my back door and I see nature, beautiful nature, and I would like to keep it that way, as I am sure the majority of the rural population of this State would agree. Most of us either have known no other way of life, or moved in order to have that way of life. The localities know what their citizens want and expect from the leaders they voted for and the State should not take that away from the localities in order to force a renewable energy that has proven over and over that it is not the right thing anywhere. Please, as you are deciding on this matter, I ask that you look beyond party lines and think of our beautiful State of Virginia. Let's keep it that way! Thank You.

I encourage you to not support HB 711 and HB 891. These two bills infringe on localities rites to site. Both Solar and BESS need to be thoughtfully planned. They are Heavy Industrial sites. They should be in Brown areas and not on prime farm and timber land. The companies are LLCs and can fold up and leave town at any time. Local fire departments are not equipped to handle fires at these sites and the standard is to let them burn. Just look what is ongoing at Moss Landing BESS a year later. It will take a very long time to recovery from that. We have had fires and many DEQ violations here in Virginia. The energy they produce may be “green” but to get to that is not green. Here in Prince George County we had a company that wanted to surround six homes in the middle of the project. Homes should be a mile away from these sites and not 75 to a 100 feet. Every site should be considered locally not by people that do not live here. Roof top is what should be focused on. It needs to be affordable and we should not be penalized from disconnecting from the grid. The electric companies are raising our rates to pay for BESS and Solar while racking in profits. Why are the tax payers penalized while they profit from taking from out rural life. Please do not forget about us.

Comments Document

I OPPOSE this bill that seeks to undermine local authority on siting solar installations, that most importantly, produce so little unreliable electric power that those in existence should be shuttered down. See attachment for how poorly Virginia solar facilities are performing, and held to no regulatory standards!! Virginia localities, especially rural counties, have had our farms, forests, waterways, and view sheds destroyed since this scam was unleashed via the VCEA, and it has only been by wise leadership and Democratic citizen input that each locality has created their own guardrail and ordinances based upon the kinship, history and geography of where we live. We will not stand for state mandates to usurp our local authority on siting solar!

I oppose this Bill, and any Bill, that takes away, reduces, removes, restricts, or eliminates local land use decision making from local, county, city, governments. My voting and support will reflect my position on this.

I am opposed to any bill that would remove land-use decision making from the locality. The State should not be making these decisions.

Once again an effort to take away localities rights to site, words are struck from this bill. Our governor ran on the premises of roof top solar and brown fields. Not enough has been done in those areas, instead of raping prime farmlands and timber with INDUSTRIAL SOLAR. It needs special exceptions and zoning for a reason! There is nothing green about SOLAR. They put out a minimal amount of electricity for how much the cost to install and ultimately the cost of destroying prime agricultural land. Solar IS NOT an agricultural crop. Outside LLC companies care nothing of where they site these acre consuming monstrosity. They can walk away from these projects at any time. Please protect our rural counties!

I am against any bill that usurps the authority of a local government to make decisions about local land.

I wish to express my opposition to HB 711. This bill takes away the authority of local governing bodies to make land use decisions based on what is best for their locality and their residents. Land use should be determined by those directly affected, not by a state ordinance or any person or agency at the state level. Local governing bodies and the citizens they represent understand the economic, cultural, and environmental nuances of the local area and the effects land use has on the local economy and environment while considering the unique culture of each local area. Thus, the local governing bodies representing their local citizens should make these decisions, not government officials and/or members of the General Assembly at the state level. The local citizens will have to live with these land use decisions therefore, their local government representatives should be empowered to make these decisions at the local level. I ask that you please vote NO on HB 711. This bill is a direct effort to allow large, industrial scale solar on agricultural (farm and timber) lands whether the local governing board or planning commission determines such use is inappropriate. These decisions should be made LOCALLY, within the county or town. I OPPOSE THIS BILL.

I am OPPOSED to HB711 because it appears to take land-use decisions away from localities. Striking the following verbiage: "subject to any applicable zoning regulations of the locality" and replacing it with "permitted pursuant to § 15.2-2288.8 unless otherwise permitted by right” is a direct effort to allow large, industrial scale solar on agricultural (farm and timber) lands whether the local governing board or planning commission determines such use is inappropriate. These decisions should be made LOCALLY, within the county or town. I OPPOSE THIS BILL.

I stand with VCDL on these bills.

I stand with VCDL on these bills.

Comments Document

HB833 is a common sense bill that will generate savings for owners of commercial, industrial and multifamily developments as Virginians continue to buy electric vehicles (EVs). By ensuring new buildings can accommodate EV charging during initial construction, EV readiness will help avoid costly future upgrades. Planning for EV charging during construction can reduce costs by anywhere from four to ten times compared to a retrofit. The bill provides flexibility for localities to set differing levels of EV-readiness based on their needs. Statewide building and electrical codes still apply, ensuring consistency in construction standards while allowing local governments to address their EV charging needs.

Vote no! This is beyond government overreach and Virginian’s do not need government to regulate our leaf blowers!

I ask you kindly to not take out rights away when coming to gas powered blowers. This is unconstitutional and serves no purpose but to be pushed upon parties line. First you want to take our rights away for something that actually works you want to tax us on it. We are taxed to death. I thought you all were talking affordability, you are doing the opposite! You are draining our pocketbooks. Insanity. Stop the taxes and regulations and worry about crime and illegals. Remove them for the safety of our Virginians Taking away the rights of localities is wrong. The government does not own us. We are the people. Solar plant are industrial not agricultural and should not be used as such. Solar farms cause behavioral problems in children. The cause soil erosion. The kill the animals. You aren't supposed to live 1.3 miles from a solar farm. Solar has bad toxins and once you remove solar it is guesstimated you can not grow a food farm on it due to toxins. Trees do thousands of great things for us. Solar nothing. They don't work if covered with snow or ice on cloudy days or at night so totally useless. Cost the tax payers more in electric bills,after we are already taxed to death. Nuclear works 24/7. Follow Germanys lead and remove all solar and batteries facilities. And solars farms are at higher risk of fires. Solar canot go near wetlands because of toxic run off and can pour into homeowners wells.

I fully support to HB 881. GLBs have long been a serious noise, health, climate change and environmental concern: *People subjected to their excessive noise have higher stress hormones and higher blood pressure. GLB noise regularly disrupts the sleep of children, shift workers, the elderly and others who require daytime sleep. * GLBs emit shockingly high amounts of carbon and other environmental pollutants that harm public health and add to our climate change challenges. * Low-income workers in the landscaping industry in particular are exposed to hearing loss and other impacts to their health.

HB881 Sullivan While I appreciate the intention of the patron to eliminate the sound of loud leaf blowers, this is an issue that should be taken up with manufacturers of the gas powered leaf blowers, not a top down approach that dictates to the customer what type of leaf blower they can use. I use gas powered leaf blowers in my business over the electric and battery options because they are way more powerful and effective. It would take double the time using battery powered leaf blowers, because batteries don't last very long and recharging can take hours. Because it would take more time, it would cost our customers more money for the same service. Many of our customers are senior citizens on fixed incomes. We don't want to have to charge more to continue the service. Currently, on the market there are only gas powered and electric powered leaf blowers. Electric or battery powered leaf blowers aren't as effective nor do they have the power of a gas powered leaf blower and there are no "quiet" gas powered leaf blowers. I do not support Delegate Sullivan's HB881 regarding the gas powered leaf blower ban. As a small business owner of a landscaping company who uses leaf blowers to keep our customer's yards neat and tidy, I can tell you that electric powered leaf blowers don't work very well, especially when compared to gas powered leaf blowers that have more power and are more efficient. If this law goes into effect it would mean that we would have to replace all of our equipment, costing thousands of dollars, ultimately driving us out of business. I am happy to talk with the patron of the bill to come up with better options that help everyone involved.

Please support HB 881 to ban gas powered leaf blowers. My neighborhood has been ruined by yard services running 2,3, sometimes 4 blowers at once, blatantly violating the noise ordinance, polluting our air, ruining our peace. And the fact is every one of these workers will have significant hearing loss from these machines. It’s too much and ruining our quality of life. Thank you Richard Woodruff Arlington.

HB 881 does not apply to towns like Mineral, Louisa County. It ONLY APPLIES TO DENSELY POPULATED AREAS - at least 2,500 people square mile.) Those opposing this bill should take the trouble to read it first! It is irresponsible and mean-spirited to block localities from passing ordinances that would improve public health and the quality of life in their communities.

Vote no! This is beyond government overreach and Virginian’s do not need government to regulate our leaf blowers! If electric leaf blowers work so well and are truly energy efficient let the free market work. If they are better people will buy them. This just makes landscaping companies already struggling to have to buy new things and pay more. Vote against this nonsense!

I write in support of HB881. I strongly support a law that will allow local jurisdictions to individually decide whether or not to restrict or regulate gasoline-powered leaf blowers and other similar equipment. Personally, I find these noisy and polluting leaf blowers to be a true scourge on our neighborhoods, but what is more important is that I believe local communities should not be restrained from debating the pros and cons of these machines. This is a local issue, and I would like to see the state allow it to be debated on the local level. There may well be places in Virginia where gasoline-powered leaf blowers are non-objectionable, but in densely-populated Arlington they cause significant trouble and suffering to thousands of people who are helpless to respond. Thank you for listening, and I urge passage of HB881.

Dear Subcommittee members, I strongly support this legislation to allow local authority to regulate gas-powered leaf blowers, and I urge your support. In my densely populated community, I'm often forced to hear the awful noise of gas leaf blowers for more than 6 hours a day since the droning racket carries for blocks. I can still hear them inside my well-insulated home while wearing noise-canceling headphones! They disrupt my work, and they disrupt the sleep of young children and neighbors who work overnight shifts. This common sense legislation balances local control, public health, and economic fairness—while directly addressing common concerns about the noise pollution, air pollution, and other health problems caused by gas-powered leaf blowers. Here are more reasons why this legislation makes sense to pass: Local choice, not a mandate: The bill permits regulation only in densely populated Virginia communities where the noise pollution impacts are greatest. Rural and low-density areas are unaffected, preserving flexibility and respecting local conditions. Health and quality-of-life benefits: Gas-powered leaf blowers generate high noise levels and concentrated air pollution. Allowing local regulation helps protect residents—especially children, seniors, and outdoor workers—without banning tools statewide. Reasonable transition period: A 12-month delay before enforcement gives homeowners and businesses ample time to plan, budget, and adapt—refuting claims of sudden or punitive change. Economic fairness: Civil penalty funds can be used to help residents and small businesses purchase compliant equipment, directly addressing concerns about cost and equity. Proven, practical alternatives: Cleaner, quieter, and powerful electric leaf blowers are widely available, effective, and increasingly affordable. Many communities and businesses already use them successfully. Reduced enforcement burden: Civil penalties—not criminal sanctions—keep enforcement proportional and focused on compliance, not punishment. This bill empowers communities to solve the localized problem of constant noise and air pollution from leaf blowers with a measured, flexible, and economically responsible approach. It is thoughtful policy that improves public health, neighborhood livability, and local self-governance. To help my community accelerate its transition to electric lawn equipment, I helped organize my community's very first gas lawn tool recycling event in October. In our community of 14,000 residents, some other residents and I recycled more than 20 gas mowers, 10, leaf blowers, and 10 miscellaneous lawn tools. We have plans to host more gas lawn tool recycling events in 2026. Please pass this reasonable legislation to help more Virginians live in quieter communities!

I too support HB 881. As others have noted, the scope of the bill is limited to localities with high high population density, it requires a reasonable transition period, and only permits, but does not require, localities to pass ordinances. I want to speak on behalf of the landscaping/lawn care workers who must operate gas-powered leaf blowers many hours a day. The sound of these machines often exceeds 90-100 decibels, risking permanent hearing loss. They also emit high levels of pollutants, including benzene and formaldehyde, and kick up hazardous dust, mold, and pesticides, leading to risks of respiratory and cardiovascular issues. Few workers are provided masks and ear protection, which are only modestly effective in any case. In high density localities these workers often are often on the job six days a week, and I suspect sometimes seven, and usually have few other options for employment. Transitioning to battery electric leaf blowers would immediately improve their health and safety.

Responding to the Virginia Manufacturers Association comments, please note that they are deceptive in that HB 881 does not "ban our leaf blowers". It permits certain high density localities to pass ordinances prohibiting or regulating the use of gas-powered leaf blowers only. Nearly all of the 3,000 employees referenced are those of Stihl, at a Virginia Beach-based plant that makes a variety of electric and gas-powered lawn equipment., including many electric leaf blowers. The Stihl Corporation is actively committed to promoting battery electric products. HB 881 would have only a positive impact on Stihl employees as it promotes a clean new technology that over time will spur the purchase of many thousands of electric leaf blowers such as those currently manufactured by Stihl.

The Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Associations supports HB881. In more densely populated localities in the Commonwealth, including Fairfax County, gas-powered leaf blowers (GLBs) pose real threats to the health and well-being of residents. For much of the year, the noise and pollution they emit interfere significantly with the quiet enjoyment of the outside (and sometimes inside) spaces of our yards and neighborhoods. GLBs are excessively loud, emitting a type of sound that carries for long distances and can penetrate the walls of houses and other buildings. They spew volatile pollutants in amounts great enough to affect our local air quality, as well as particulates that have been linked to a range of serious diseases and conditions. Fully capable electric leaf blowers, which are much quieter and have NO emissions, are now readily available from many manufacturers, and they are commercially viable for landscape management businesses. HB881 does not ban GLBs. Instead, it allows densely populated localities (defined with respect to people per square mile) - and only such localities - to determine at the local level whether regulating or prohibiting the use of GLBs is appropriate within their jurisdictions, and to enact suitable ordinances. It also requires a minimum transition period to allow commercial operators time to adapt to any restrictions that are adopted. This legislation is needed, and it is properly targeted to the areas where GLBs have the greatest adverse impacts. Please vote to advance HB881.

I support HB 881. My husband and I have long utilized corded electric leaf blowers and other electric landscaping equipment, and more recently have transitioned to battery-powered alternatives. Based on our experience, these battery-powered tools have proven to be equally effective.

Virginia's manufacturers oppose HB881. Don't ban our leaf blowers. Over 3,000 Virginians manufacture, sell, and service outdoor leaf blowers in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Thousands more in the landscaping and agriculture industry depend upon this supply-chain to support their small businesses across the Commonwealth - from Virginia Beach to Fairfax County. Virginia's local governments already have several choices at their disposal to abate noise without subjecting all citizens and the landscaping industry to product bans: 1. Local Government Noise Regulation Ordinances. Local government can set hours of operation and noise level ordinances. 2. Local Government Procurement. All local governments can set procurement terms for landscaping services that meet their local budgets and policies. 3. HOAs. HOAs can set limitations on hours when “noise” is allowed. 4. Allow the free market to work. Buy battery powered outdoor power equipment manufactured in the United States and encourage your network to do the same.

My name is Gary Usrey, and I am one of the leaders of the Virginia Chapter of Elders Climate Action, a national, non-profit organization of elders concerned about climate change and the impact it will have on future generations. Gas-powered leaf blowers (GLBs) are seriously harmful to: both physical and mental health of the users and those in proximity (even inside their homes), our air quality, key wildlife (from pollinators to birds), and our environment. High-decibel, low-frequency noise has been shown to damage hearing, raise blood pressure, disrupt concentration, interfere with children’s learning, and impact mental health. Inefficient 2-stroke engines fail to combust about 30% of the fuel, dumping carcinogens such as benzene, butadiene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde into our air and emitting particulates that can lodge deep inside the lungs. Using a commercial GLB for one hour emits as much pollution as driving a passenger car 1,100 miles - from Washington to Miami. GLBs are not necessary. Modern electric blowers are just as powerful, with return on investment in 3 or fewer years due to reduced fuel and maintenance costs. Virginia-based Stihl USA aggressively promotes its electric line. GLBs have an outsized impact on our health and air quality; enacting HB 881 would be a significant win for public health, quality of life, and the environment.

Dear Sir/Madam, I'm writing in support of HB881, which would give authority to localities with more than 2,500 residents per square mile, if they choose, to ban or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. These leaf blowers not only are a sound pollution annoyance to residents but they also threaten the our health and environment of our communities. The noise level exceeds permitted levels where I live, in Arlington. Both the excessive noise and toxic fumes have been associated with a wide range of health impacts, including hearing loss, cardiac and respiratory problems, exposure to known carcinogens, interference with children's learning, and reduce concentration, sleep, and work. Low-income workers in the landscaping industry in particular are exposed to these health impacts. Thank you for your consideration.

I support HB881 that will give authority to localities with more than 2,500 residents per square mile to ban or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. I live in Fairfax County where these machines are used almost daily, not only to clean up leave but also to blow mown grass into the street/public severs. They are a nuisance. The operators and neighbors are exposed to loud noise and pollution they emit. If leaf blowers need to be used at all, electric options are available. Thank you!

I support HB881 that will give authority to localities with more than 2,500 residents per square mile, if they choose, to ban or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. These leaf blowers not only are an annoyance to residents but threaten the health and environment of our communities. The noise level exceeds permitted levels at least in Arlington. Both the excessive noise and toxic fumes have been associated with a wide range of health impacts, including hearing loss, cardiac and respiratory problems, exposure to known carcinogens, interference with children's learning, and reduce concentration, sleep, and work. I copied this text from a template but I wholeheartedly endorse every word.

Fully support!

I fully support HB881. Gas-powered leaf blowers are extremely harmful to humans, wildlife and our environment. They pollute the air, cause hearing damage and disrupt the quiet enjoyment of neighborhoods, parks and other outdoor venues. Every locality should have the option to regulate/ban them. Many homeowners have traded their gas-powered leaf blowers, gas-powered lawn mowers and gas-powered snow blowers for battery operated equipment. The battery powered equipment is just as effective, and in many cases, more effective, more efficient and less costly than their gas-powered counterparts. This bill should be passed without further delay.

I support HB881 [or Please support SB687] that will give authority to localities with more than 2,500 residents per square mile, if they choose, to ban or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. These leaf blowers not only are an annoyance to residents but threaten the health and environment of our communities. The noise level exceeds permitted levels at least in Arlington. Both the excessive noise and toxic fumes have been associated with a wide range of health impacts, including hearing loss, cardiac and respiratory problems, exposure to known carcinogens, interference with children's learning, and reduce concentration, sleep, and work. Low-income workers in the landscaping industry in particular are exposed to these health impacts.

I am a Virginia resident writing to request you support HB881 that will give authority to localities with more than 2,500 residents per square mile, if they choose, to ban or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. These leaf blowers not only are an annoyance to residents but threaten the health and environment of our communities. The noise level exceeds permitted levels at least in Arlington. Both the excessive noise and toxic fumes have been associated with a wide range of health impacts, including hearing loss, cardiac and respiratory problems, exposure to known carcinogens, interference with children's learning, and reduce concentration, sleep, and work. Low-income workers in the landscaping industry in particular are exposed to these health impacts. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

I support HB 881. This just allows people to do a ban if they want. This isn't even a ban itself. People should be able to ban this sort of thing if they want to. Again, this isn't even doing a ban! Just let the localities figure out if they want a ban or not. Let it through!

I support giving authority to localities with more than 2,500 residents per square mile, if they choose, to ban or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. These leaf blowers not only are an annoyance to residents but threaten the health and environment of our communities. The noise level exceeds permitted levels at least in Arlington. Both the excessive noise and toxic fumes have been associated with a wide range of health impacts, including hearing loss, cardiac and respiratory problems, exposure to known carcinogens, interference with children's learning, and reduce concentration, sleep, and work. Low-income workers in the landscaping industry in particular are exposed to these health impacts. The issue of GLB excessive noise is especially relevant when you consider that most landscaping companies will use 2 or 3 large GLBs at the same time when doing yards in close residential proximity. This creates noise that is easily heard through walls of a standard house and is extremely disruptive. Then add the fact that you may have two or three other landscaping companies working on the same street, and you have the makings of an industrial work zone in what is supposed to be a calm neighborhood. What is worse, is that for the most part, leaf blowing is performative work…noise equals productivity for people willing to pay for the service. In many cases, the same work could be done with a rake, or definitely with a quiet electric blower.

I strongly support HB881 that will give authority to localities with more than 2,500 residents per square mile, if they choose, to ban or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. These leaf blowers not only are an annoyance to residents but threaten the health and environment of our communities. The noise level exceeds permitted levels in Arlington. The excessive noise and toxic fumes have been associated with a wide range of health impacts, including hearing loss, cardiac and respiratory problems, exposure to known carcinogens, interference with children's learning, and reduce concentration, sleep, and work. Low-income workers in the landscaping industry in particular are exposed to these health impacts, but everyone in earshot is impacted. Thanks for supporting HB881.

Yes, please. Fully support!

I strongly support HB881. This bill will allow local communities to ban or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. While these are mainstays in many homes in the United States they are also huge nuisances to residents. Even more importantly, they emit many toxic fumes that can cause cardiac arrest and even expose people to carcinogens. Low-income people in particular are often exposed to these kinds of fumes. Again, while these devices may seem harmless, they actually have serious impact on our communities, and we should be able to regulate them. Please vote yes on this bill.

I support HB881 that will give authority to localities with more than 2,500 residents per square mile, if they choose, to ban or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. These leaf blowers not only are an annoyance to residents but threaten the health and environment of our communities. The noise level exceeds permitted levels at least in Arlington. Both the excessive noise and toxic fumes have been associated with a wide range of health impacts, including hearing loss, cardiac and respiratory problems, exposure to known carcinogens, interference with children's learning, and reduce concentration, sleep, and work. Low-income workers in the landscaping industry in particular are exposed to these health impacts.

I support HB881 that will give authority to localities with more than 2,500 residents per square mile to ban or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. I live in a high-density area of Arlington where these machines are used regularly. They are a nuisance. The operators are exposed to loud noise and all of us suffer from the pollution they emit. Residents in my condominium complex regularly complain about them and I am not sure who at this point supports their use, especially when electric options are available. Thank you!

I support HB-881 which gives localities the option to implement a gas-powered leaf blower ban if they choose (it does not require it). During the mowing season and into the fall, there is a constant drone from gas-powered leaf blowers in my neighborhood. Gas powered leaf blowers pollute, they are harmful for the health of the operators by potentially damaging their hearing and a much safer alternative exists: electric leaf blowers! HB-881 requires the locale to have a 12 month transition period which gives landscaping companies time to adapt to the change. Last year, I switched to a lawn company that uses all electric equipment and I am so happy with that decision. I also stop the mowing in mid October and rake my own leaves, which I largely leave in beds. This is far better for wildlife (Leave the leaves!). We are polluting our planet with fumes and noise just for the vanity of vacuumed lawns, driveways and sidewalks. Let's get our priorities straight!

I strongly support HB881 to give localities the authority to ban gas powered leaf blowers, if they choose. In Arlington, residents have made clear to the County government that they overwhelmingly support measures to ban gas-powered leaf blowers. As mentioned in other comments. these blowers not only disturb the peace in neighborhoods but the excessive noise and toxic emissions contribute to a variety of health impacts, including hearing loss, exposure to carcinogens, respiratory and cardiac problems, and reduces concentration and interferes with children's learning. Low-income landscape workers are most exposed to these heath dangers. Electric leaf blowers offer a good alternative and in many cases raking, sweeping or just leaving the leaves alone is sufficient. This law is not a mandate but provides localities and their residents the ability to address a problem that is undermining the well-being of their community.

I fully support HB881 and allowing local governments the authority to regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. These machines produce disproportionately high levels of air and noise pollution, without the same emissions controls required for on-road vehicles. In densely populated areas like Northern Virginia, local leaders are best positioned to balance environmental health, public noise concerns, and the needs of residents. Providing municipalities the option to regulate or phase out gas leaf blowers is a reasonable step toward improving local air quality and quality of life.

I urge you to support HB881: Gas-powered leaf blowers; local prohibition or regulation, civil penalty. Gas-powered leaf blowers are harmful to human health, air quality, wildlife, and our environment. They are excessively loud. Their inefficient 2-stroke engines fail to combust about 30 percent of the fuel, releasing carcinogens (such as benzene and formaldehyde) and emitting small particulates that can lodge deep inside the lungs. Using a commercial gas-powered leaf blowers for one hour emits as much pollution as driving a passenger car 1,100 miles. Electric leaf blowers are just as powerful, are much quieter, and cost significantly less to operate due to reduced fuel and maintenance costs. Stihl USA, headquartered here in Virginia Beach, promotes their electric leaf blowers. This bill would not prohibit or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers state-wide. It would only enable localities to prohibit or regulate them. Localities which don’t want to will not be affected. There is no fiscal impact.

Gas powered leaf blowers are a public health, noise, and quality-of-life issue supported by clear evidence. First, air pollution. Most gas leaf blowers use small two-stroke engines, which are highly inefficient and lack modern emission controls. Per hour of operation, a single gas leaf blower can emit pollution comparable to driving a modern car hundreds of miles. These emissions include smog-forming pollutants and fine particulate matter and occur directly in residential neighborhoods, near homes, schools, and sidewalks. Second, health impacts. Leaf blowers do not just emit exhaust; they also re-suspend fine dust into the air—pollen, mold, soil particles, pesticides, and animal waste. These particles, known as PM2.5, can penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream. Exposure is associated with asthma attacks, cardiovascular stress, increased hospital visits, and premature mortality. Children, seniors, people with respiratory conditions, and outdoor workers are especially vulnerable. Third, noise. Gas leaf blowers routinely exceed noise levels associated with stress, sleep disruption, and elevated blood pressure. This is not brief or occasional noise. It is repetitive, prolonged, and often unavoidable for residents, caregivers, and people working from home. Chronic noise exposure is a recognized public health concern, not merely a nuisance. Fourth, worker safety. Landscaping workers experience daily exposure to exhaust fumes, excessive noise, and vibration, often without adequate protective equipment. Reducing reliance on gas blowers lowers occupational health risks while preserving jobs, particularly when policies include reasonable transition periods. Fifth, effective alternatives already exist. Modern electric blowers are significantly quieter, produce zero tailpipe emissions, and are already widely used in both residential and commercial landscaping. Rakes, brooms, and mulching mowers often achieve equal or better results with fewer health and environmental impacts. This is not a technology gap—it is a policy decision. Finally, this is an appropriate role for local government. Cities routinely regulate noise, emissions, and equipment use to protect public health, especially when cleaner alternatives are readily available. Gas-powered leaf blowers represent a high-pollution, low-necessity activity with proven, practical substitutes. Virginia needs to acknowledge best practices from the rest of the country. Restricting or banning gas-powered leaf blowers is a reasonable, evidence-based step to improve air quality, reduce harmful noise, protect workers, and enhance the daily quality of life for residents.

I too support HB 881. As others have noted, the scope of the bill is limited to localities with high high population density, it requires a reasonable transition period, and only permits, but does not require, localities to pass ordinances. I want to speak on behalf of the landscaping/lawn care workers who must operate gas-powered leaf blowers many hours a day. The sound of these machines often exceeds 90-100 decibels, risking permanent hearing loss. They also emit high levels of pollutants, including benzene and formaldehyde, and kick up hazardous dust, mold, and pesticides, leading to risks of respiratory and cardiovascular issues. Few workers are provided masks and ear protection, which are only modestly effective in any case. In high density localities these workers often are often on the job six days a week, and I suspect sometimes seven, and usually have few other options for employment. Transitioning to battery electric leaf blowers would immediately improve their health and safety.

I support HB881. Gas-powered leaf blowers emit toxic fumes that are harmful to anyone nearby, especially to workers who operate this machinery daily—a population less likely to have health insurance or access to medical care. The constant loud noise is unpleasant and can lead to permanent hearing loss for those who operate the equipment. As a nurse, I am concerned about these detrimental health effects. Wildlife is also adversely affected. Fortunately, there are cleaner and quieter alternatives that would benefit everyone involved while allowing landscaping businesses to continue providing this service.

I agree with all the comments mention by the other commentators. The polluntion, the health to the workers, the detriment to the wildlife that cant find a mate or a birdsong, the loudness that overwhelms the neighborhood, the need for workers to wear hearing protection and become unaware of nearby dangers such as road traffic, etc But for me personally as a reciently retired person, I am enjoying having more freetime on my hands. I prefer to spend much of that free time outside working in my yard, garden or in habitat restoration in my local park and I am always dismayed by the almost constant dorne of these machines. There is hardly a day when it isnt present. It certainly isn't the way I want to spend my free time.....when there are so many other ways to deal with an issue that really isnt a necessary issue. Let the leaves remain and rake them if you must..... and a few grass clipping can certainly be swept off the sidewalk or driveway if they are that objectionable. It seems like such a huge cost that we all are paying on so many levels for this way of doing things.

I support HB881. I agree with other comments in support of this bill. As a public health professional, I worry that gas powered leaf blowers emit toxic fumes that harm landscaping professionals and anyone in the vicinity. On a personal note, as someone who loves spending time outdoors volunteering to restore habitat in county parks, the noise and air pollution created by gas powered leaf blowers is unbearable and unacceptable. We have many alternatives that are less damaging to human health and the environment

I JOIN MY FELLOW CITIZENS IN SUPPORT OF HB881. I concur with the other commenters !! I hate gas-powered leaf blowers - they are NOISY and POLLUTE. GAS BLOWERS ruin my peace and quiet. I cannot use and enjoy my property because of the NOISE and pollution from gas blowers which are constant all summer fall and spring. I even hear them in WINTER !! I cannot express how angry I am that anyone would use these when quiet rakes and electric blowers are readily avaialble alternatives. I cannot count how many times I have had to shut my windows and run inside because a landscape company has started BLASTING GAS leaf blowers. They are so loud one hears them ROARING from many blocks away. HAS THE COUNTY NO CONCERN FOR THIS PUBLIC NUISANCE?? DOES THE COUNTY CARE that gas-powered leaf blowers are harmful to our environment, emitting toxic fumes and greenhouse gases?? This is not acceptable when alternatives exist.

I support HB881. It's reasonable to allow localities options to help control the use of GPBs. The localities can then decide if and how to use the option. Many people who oppose regulation of GPBs cite financial concerns. This is interesting to me because they've already committed to paying for these blowers, their maintenance, and have often hired labor, when there is a free alternative (to leave the leaves) and a much lower cost alternative (to rake or scoop the leaves). I do realize there are some contexts where leaf removal may be necessary, for instance in a place where it's required by HOA or other to remove leaves, even if that wouldn't be the resident or property owner's first choice. That said, I think it would be good for advocates and lawmakers to put some effort into providing cost/benefit analysis as a way to give context for financial concerns. For example, there is a lot of available information about the lifetime cost of a person owning one GPB vs one electric and my understanding is that the ROI is realized within 2-3 years. Contrast that with the lifetime cost of living with noise-induced hearing loss and/or tinnitus, which are both incurable and strongly linked to heart disease, dementia, depression, etc. all requiring treatment with extreme associated costs. How do we calculate the societal cost of the degradation of habitat on insect species who rely on leaf litter to survive and go on to feed our reptiles and birds? You get the drift. I realize some people won't change their minds even when presented with this kind of information, so I think this bill is a necessary, strong nudge against that inertia.

I am writing in support of HB881. I concur with the other comments that support the bill and do not want to reiterate everything that was written. That said, I will say that personally I despise gas-powered leaf blowers and see them as the bane of my existence when I am trying to enjoy nature. I volunteer at a local park and I cannot count how many times I had to go inside because a group of landscape employees were blasting several leaf blowers at once and the obnoxious drone was hurting my ears. Aside from personal anecdotes, gas-powered leaf blowers are harmful to our environment, emitting toxic fumes and greenhouse gases. Unfortunately people who like using gas-powered leaf blowers and don't seem to care about the damage to their own health, are harming others who do mind. This is not acceptable when alternatives exist.

I strongly support HB 881. I have lived in Richmond City for over 10 years and have had to move several times due to gas-powered leaf blower noise and pollution. It affects me on a daily basis and I know there are a lot of others that feel the same way. Allowing localities such as Richmond to regulate or ban the use of gas-powered leaf blowers if they choose to do so is a positive step for the community. Gas-powered leaf blowers are seriously harmful to the health of the users and those in proximity (even people inside their homes), to our air quality, to key wildlife (e.g., pollinators and birds), and to our environment. High-decibel, low-frequency noise can damage hearing; raise blood pressure; disrupt concentration, sleep, and work; interfere with children’s learning, and even impact mental health. Gas-powered leaf blowers are unnecessary and have an outsized impact on our health, air quality, and environment. Enacting HB 881 would be a significant win for public health and our quality of life.

--I support HB 811 which provides a clear avenue for densely-populated localities to undertake the normal process of passing an ordinance that would prohibit or otherwise regulate the use of gas-powered leaf blowers (GLBs) in accordance with the residents' desires. The bill is permissive, giving agency to localities. There is nothing mandatory about it. -- Some people argue that electric-powered leaf blowers are not able to do the work that GLBs can do. That view is very much out of date. Take it from the Stihl Corporation whose U.S. headquarters are in Virginia Beach; their website states clearly that its electric blowers provide the same power as its gas ones, and outlines the advantages to commercial landscapers in transitioning to electric. -- Given the well-documented damage that GLBs cause to our environment and to our health -- both to the users' health and to ours, the innocent neighbors -- what possible rationale is there for continuing to allow the use of such harmful tools when better alternatives are immediately available? -- Some people complain that the cost of electric blowers is too high for commercial landscapers. The return on investment calculation is unique for every business, depending on a number of factors including the size of a business, the type of work done, the location in Virginia/the country, the climate in that location, and the age of a landscaper's current tools. With savings on fuel and maintenance, a landscaper can break even in as little as a year. And anyway, why should a cost to a landscaper be more important than the cost to the health of the innocent bystanders? -- HB 881 is a modest, sensible response to the GLB threat to the welfare of millions of Virginians in densely-populated parts of the commonwealth.

I strongly support HB 881 - which only applies to densely populated localities, and only if those localities choose to pass such an ordinance. It is an opt-in bill and does not oblige a locality to enact anything. The first comment (from Springfield) is not only incorrect in many aspects, but refuses to take into account the social, public health, and efficiency costs of continuing to use gas leaf blowers. Take efficiency: Saying gas blowers are more efficient than electric blowers is only true in the most narrow selfish sense. A commercial gas blower can produce up to 110 decibels of noise. In densely populated areas this noise has real economic consequences. How many people on Zoom calls lose what is being said? How many other people working at home have their concentration ruined by loud blower noise? Think writers, students, people reading complicated reports, and musicians. How many nightshift workers (medical and airport staff) lose valuable daytime sleep? How many babies wake up mid-nap and have their sleep schedule disrupted causing them to wake for hours at night and their parents with them? How many doctors in hospitals or medical centers consulting with colleagues are distracted by gas blower noise? Did you even attempt to calculate how much efficiency is lost in the whole community before declaring that such equipment is "more efficient". "Efficient" for whom? Or do you consider other people's time worthless? And there's the social and quality-of-life aspect: In the fall now, what used to be reasonably quiet neighborhoods are invaded by loud industrial noise. Quiet time gardening in one's own yard is many times not possible any more. Family meals on the deck or patio are constantly disrupted. Children's parties anyone? It's hard to predict the arrival of lawn crews. The lawn mower is bad enough, but we are used to mower noise and it is generally of short duration. It's the loud high-pitched whine of the gas blower that sets folks on edge, especially when such blowers are performing work of little or marginal value, often blowing mere handfuls of leaves from property line to curb, blowing barely visible grass clippings off driveways, blowing leaves out from deep under bushes, blowing leaves from trails in our parks. There's also the public health aspect: operating a commercial gas blower emits as much ozone-causing pollution as driving a car 1,1000 miles. (Compare to a commercial gas lawn mower: one hour of use is equivalent to driving 300 miles.) Why this matters? The air quality in many urban areas, especially in Northern Va is considered a marginal attainment zone for ozone. And who bears the brunt of this air and noise pollution - much more so than residents of suburban neighborhoods? What about those operating this equipment? Multiple studies link PM2.5 exposure to male infertility. Should workers damage their hearing, health, and ability to start a family just to create leaf-free landscapes? ? That electric gas blowers are not as powerful and, over time, as economic as gas equipment is false. Please consult the American Green Zone Alliance. Gas blowers can be recycled! (Falls Church, VA, does this.)

I support the bill. The first comment, however, mischaracterizes the bill. The bill will not require localities to prohibit or regulate the use of gas-powered leaf blowers, but gives them the freedom to do so if they wish. The bill would not affect all of Virginia but give freedom of choice to localities having at least 2,500 people per square mile. That said, the negatives of GLB use far outweigh the points raised in the first comment. GLBs are seriously harmful to users’ health and to those in proximity, to our air quality, to key wildlife, and to our environment. High-decibel, low-frequency noise can damage hearing; raise blood pressure; disrupt concentration, sleep, and work; interfere with children’s learning, and even impact mental health. Inefficient 2-stroke engines fail to combust about 30% of the fuel, dumping carcinogens such as benzene and formaldehyde into our air, and emitting particulates that can lodge deep inside the lungs. Modern electric leaf blowers are just as powerful, are much quieter, and cost significantly less to operate than GLBs due to reduced fuel and maintenance costs. Virginia-based Stihl USA aggressively promotes its electric line. It would require at least a 12-month transition period before any ordinance takes effect. Undoubtedly some GLBs would be aging out or should be aged out during such a time frame. GLBs have an outsized impact on our health, air quality, and environment. Enacting HB 881/SB 687 would be a significant win for public health and our quality of life.

I am writing as a Virginia homeowner to respectfully oppose any proposal to ban gas-powered leaf blowers. As a homeowner, I am concerned about the direct financial and practical impact such a ban would impose. Gas-powered leaf blowers remain the most effective and reliable option for maintaining larger properties, managing heavy seasonal leaf fall, and completing work efficiently. Comparable electric alternatives often require multiple batteries, frequent recharging, and higher upfront costs, making them impractical and significantly more expensive for many homeowners. A ban would force residents to replace functional equipment with less capable alternatives, increasing household expenses without a clear corresponding benefit. Additionally, a mandated transition would result in substantial and unnecessary environmental waste. Thousands of perfectly functional gas-powered leaf blowers would be prematurely discarded, contributing to landfill volume and environmental harm. Manufacturing, shipping, and disposing of replacement electric equipment, including batteries with limited lifespans, carries its own environmental costs that should not be overlooked. Requiring the disposal of durable, serviceable equipment contradicts the broader goal of sustainability. I fully support reasonable efforts to reduce emissions and encourage cleaner technologies. However, an outright ban is a blunt approach that overlooks real world use cases, homeowner affordability, and unintended environmental consequences. A more balanced policy, such as voluntary incentives, emissions standards, or gradual transitions, would better serve both residents and environmental goals without imposing undue burdens. Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate your attention to the concerns of homeowners across the Commonwealth.

I stand with VCDL on these bills.

I support HB262 from Del. Simonds and oppose HB888 from Del. Shin. HB262 appropriately removes unnecessary requirements for local businesses that stifle investment by local entrepreneurs. In Newport News alone, after the removal of parking minimums in certain cases, several new businesses in the Hilton historic district have popped up, including a local pizza shop and a local wine shop. Several large vacant parking lots in other parts of the city on Jefferson Ave have been converted to commercial space. Overall, it has been really good for the city, and I'm sure that will continue. HB888, however, over-legislates and unnecessarily complicates this issue. This is an unnecessary government restriction that should not exist. There is no logical reason to continue to lay out various cases for restrictions when the benefit is clear, and it is clearly not the role of the government to dictate parking to businesses. While it may be an OK medium-term step in changing existing legislation, I see this half-measure as over-complicating a simple issue.

I support HB 888. Parking mandates are well understood to stifle the building of homes and businesses because they significantly add to the cost of construction and take up land that could be used for other purposes (e.g. more housing). The increased cost of building housing is often passed on to the renter or resident, increasing the cost of housing. Parking mandates cost cities money, too, by increasing impermeable surfaces and runoff, generally increasing the amount of streets and roads per capita, and resulting in more liabilities for the city. This bill is a critical part of a larger effort to reduce car-centric design and emphasize dense development with reliable transit opportunities for all residents.

I ask you kindly to not take out rights away when coming to gas powered blowers. This is unconstitutional and serves no purpose but to be pushed upon parties line. First you want to take our rights away for something that actually works you want to tax us on it. We are taxed to death. I thought you all were talking affordability, you are doing the opposite! You are draining our pocketbooks. Insanity. Stop the taxes and regulations and worry about crime and illegals. Remove them for the safety of our Virginians Taking away the rights of localities is wrong. The government does not own us. We are the people. Solar plant are industrial not agricultural and should not be used as such. Solar farms cause behavioral problems in children. The cause soil erosion. The kill the animals. You aren't supposed to live 1.3 miles from a solar farm. Solar has bad toxins and once you remove solar it is guesstimated you can not grow a food farm on it due to toxins. Trees do thousands of great things for us. Solar nothing. They don't work if covered with snow or ice on cloudy days or at night so totally useless. Cost the tax payers more in electric bills,after we are already taxed to death. Nuclear works 24/7. Follow Germanys lead and remove all solar and batteries facilities. And solars farms are at higher risk of fires. Solar canot go near wetlands because of toxic run off and can pour into homeowners wells.

I am a city of Chesapeake resident and am desperate for this to be accepted. The area has become so dense and the stray bullets are dangerous. 5 acres would give us the peace of mind with the surrounding 3 acre lots that shopting would no longer be happening. Our neighbors do not use proper back stops. They do not use safe shooting measures. November 2024 a stray bullet went flying by my head while we were fishing at our pond. We own 175 acres. These new 3 acre parcels are now surround us and the gun shots are oit of control. I fear for my life, my childrens life and my farm animals. I appreciate your time and energy with the effort to protect our safety.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the recently proposed bills on gun control. While I understand the intent behind these bills—to enhance public safety—I firmly believe that they will have unintended consequences that infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment guarantees "the right of individuals to keep and bear arms", and it is a fundamental part of what makes this country free. These bills being proposed would place unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on responsible gun owners, making it harder for Virginians to exercise their rights in a lawful and safe manner. Rather than focusing on restricting access to firearms, I urge the General Assembly to consider measures that target criminals and illegal activities, such as enforcing stricter penalties for those who use firearms in the commission of crimes, or improving background checks for gun purchases. It is essential to address the root causes of violence, such as mental health issues and gang-related activity, rather than punishing responsible gun owners who follow the law. Furthermore, these proposed bills could create significant logistical challenges for gun owners, particularly those who rely on their firearms for self-defense, hunting, or recreational activities. The financial burden and potential legal ramifications of complying with these new regulations would be overwhelming for many Virginians. I strongly urge you to reconsider these proposals and to focus on policies that protect both our rights and our communities. I trust that you will make the best decision for all Virginians, and I sincerely hope that you will oppose these bills.

I stand with VCDL on these bills.

Chair Askew and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Eric W. Payne, Esq., and I serve as the Executive Director of the Economic Development Authority for the City of Martinsville, Virginia. I am here in support of Delegate Phillips’ legislation to expand the authority of designated EDAs and IDAs to engage in housing-related work. I want to start with a simple statement that reflects what we see every day on the ground. Housing development is economic development. Without housing, employers cannot recruit or retain workers, families cannot stay rooted in their communities, and revitalization efforts stall before they ever reach their potential. EDAs and IDAs are uniquely positioned to help address this challenge. These authorities are made up of vested community members who live where they serve. They include business leaders, civic leaders, and regional stakeholders who are deeply invested in the long-term success of their localities. They bring continuity, institutional knowledge, and a singular focus on economic outcomes. Local governments do extraordinary work, but they are not immune to disruption. At times, localities experience leadership transitions, political gridlock, or internal challenges that slow progress. When that happens, critical projects can stall, even when the need is urgent and funding is available. An empowered EDA provides a stabilizing force during those moments. It allows a community to continue advancing housing and redevelopment work in parallel with local government processes. It does not replace the locality. It augments it. In Martinsville, we face a severe housing shortage, especially workforce housing. Our city is land-locked, with limited greenfield opportunities. That reality means adaptive reuse is often the only viable path forward. EDAs are well suited for this work because they already manage complex projects involving property acquisition, predevelopment, financing, and public-private partnerships. Yet under current law, our ability to fully participate in housing solutions is constrained, even when housing is the single greatest barrier to economic growth. This legislation fixes that gap. It gives communities the flexibility to use an existing, accountable tool to address one of their most pressing economic needs. This bill is not about expanding government unnecessarily. It is about using the right tool at the right time. It allows EDAs to step in when needed, to keep momentum moving, and to ensure that housing development keeps pace with job creation. I respectfully urge the committee to support this legislation. Thank you for your time and consideration.

SUPPORT House Bill 1112 allows local governments to better protect community energy reliability and sustainability by authorizing the localities to consider the real-world impacts of high-energy users and new electrical infrastructure when updating zoning ordinances and evaluating development . This bill ensures that the availability of electric energy is taken into account in Planning District 8, promoting responsible land use that aligns with sustainable energy consumption. Reporting projected energy use reinforces localities ability to ensure planned growth aligns with grid capacity and helps to increase. transparency and accountability. HB1112 promotes responsible land use decisions, strengthens grid resilience, and helps communities plan for a secure and balanced energy future. HB 1112 is a crucial step toward balancing economic growth with the integrity of our energy infrastructure and environmental sustainability.

I stand with VCDL on these bills.

I stand with VCDL on these bills.

I request that you vote no on this proposal. Religious and non-profit organizations in Arlington (where I live) mostly inhabit low-density areas and these do not allow large-scale or even medium scale property development, i.e. currently you may only build up to a six plex on any lot. So this is not a practical way to add affordable housing, as it either requires you to 1) drastically upzone the area where the property is located, and REMOVE it from the "social" purpose of the community. Even with 60% CAF's and 50 years affordability, the property transitions from non-profit and community focused to a "for profit" status over the long term, changing the purpose of that land use. Affordable units make more sense in higher density areas, which Arlington has four approved medium to high density corridors. Or it requires you to get only minimal numbers of units on the subdivided lots, again promoting inefficient land use. Further, these projects, of which Arlington has already had a numbere approved via Special GLUP processes, have involved upzoning and they require very high density, up to 100 units per acre, to qualify for LIHTC credits in Virginia. These projects introduce high density into low density areas, and Arlington has shown that it does not provide the adequat services and infrastructure for such upzoned projects, meaning that the project backfires fiscally on the community in the outyears. Given our current fiscal situation, that is very poor governance. This is not a solution for what we need, which is preservation of low-cost housing, nor more market rate units, with projects converting back to all market rates and churches being sidelined at the end of the affordability period. It also entails significant loss of natural resources as these sites are often homes to large trees and landscaped areas. Arlington has done its part for housing; with montlhy densification projects for more housing, including affordable housing; it does not need to density AGAIN and PERSISTENTLY to remove the little community owned lands still extant in our very small, fully developed jurisdiction

As a member of Charlottesville City Council, I write in full support of HB1279. It will provide a practical, impactful path for faith organizations to more easily build desperately needed affordable housing throughout Virginia

Our historic, urban core member cities are acutely aware of the need for housing and land use tools. Please help us preserve the historic nature of some of America’s oldest cities and neighborhoods. Where it has made sense, many of our cities have done away with parking minimums, allowed ADUs by right, and have welcomed manufactured and modular housing that helps solve affordable housing options and increase housing stock. However, a mandated housing policy such as found in HB 1279 does not serve the greater community, nor does it preserve all that makes our historic older cities great.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tracey Hardney Scott, Housing Chair for the Virginia State Conference NAACP, and I am here in strong support of this legislation advancing affordable housing on land owned by tax-exempt religious and nonprofit organizations. Virginia is facing a severe affordable housing crisis. This bill offers a smart and practical solution by allowing housing to be developed **by right on land already dedicated to serving the public good. By removing unnecessary zoning barriers and discretionary approvals, the bill lowers costs and speeds up the delivery of housing our communities urgently need. We strongly support the requirement that at least 60 percent of units be affordable and that affordability be preserved for **a minimum of 50 years. These provisions ensure long-term stability and help prevent displacement. The bill also balances local interests by subjecting completed developments to local property taxation unless explicitly exempted by the locality. Faith-based and nonprofit organizations have long served as trusted community anchors. This legislation empowers them to be part of the solution while maintaining accountability and public benefit. We respectfully urge your support.

I am the pastor of Community of Faith UMC, located in the Franklin Farm community of Fairfax County. We are actively pursuing using our unused, excess land to build affordable housing based on our long-standing commitment to serving the community through our church and food pantry. For the past 26 years we have continued to witness the growing inability for hard-working individuals and families to live in the communities where they work - and still have enough money for basic necessities. In the early months of our efforts last year, we were met by swift, loud resistance (yard signs, matching t-shirts, angry emails and letters from our POA and closest neighbors) before a concept was even developed! This grass-roots effort came with the threat of expensive lawsuits (the Franklin Farm POA has already spent over $30,000 without willingness to have civil conversations). We need state legislation to streamline the process so that together we can meet the current crisis head on. I implore you to support HB1279 to enable churches and non-profits to efficiently and affordably live out their values while serving the most essential needs of the community without duress or delay. Thank you!

Fairlington Presbyterian Church, where I am pastor, sensed God calling us several years ago to explore how we could better use the large parking lot behind the church that sat empty for most of the week. We eventually entered into an agreement with Wesley Housing, an affordable housing developer who bought a portion of our parking lot to build the Waypoint at Fairlington: 81 apartments with nine set aside for adults with disabilities. The proceeds from the sale of property to Wesley Housing enabled us to renovate the church to make our old building fully accessible for worshippers with disabilities. Now we share space with our neighbors, providing a community daycare, camps and classes for kids, and meeting spaces for support groups. Since that time, other pastors have reached out to me and asked, How can we do what you did? The answer is, you may not be able to. We were blessed - we had the time and resources to navigate a five-year process, with support from local leaders. Many others don’t. Outdated zoning laws and costly rezoning processes often block these efforts - that’s what’s happened to a Presbyterian Church a few neighborhoods away that wanted to build 90 affordable homes for seniors. That's why I am advocating for this legislation. Across Virginia, faith institutions collectively own more than 74,000 acres of land - nearly twice the size of Richmond. At least 30 faith groups have tried to build housing, but fewer than half have succeeded because of local rezoning processes that are lengthy, costly, and unpredictable. We want the state to give the freedom back to faith communities to do what they feel called to do with the land they own, and tell local governments to remove red tape blocking them. The legislation still maintains necessary guardrails for health and safety through administrative approval processes. One researcher estimates that 100,000 American churches may close in the next few decades, based on declining attendance numbers and rising costs of maintaining older buildings. The redevelopment of churches for affordable homes will enable many smaller churches to survive, and continue to benefit their communities. Congregations generate economic value to their communities because they spend locally and hire locally; they host events that bring people to the community who spend money there; they share space in their buildings, at low cost or no cost; and they provide needed resources and services to the community. Statewide zoning reform that makes it easier for congregations to redevelop their properties and keep their doors open will provide multiple benefits to communities, beyond the value of housing.

I stand with VCDL on these bills.