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.

Please support this bill to give localities the power to prioritize their own health, happiness, and prosperity as stewards of their homes. Prioritizing trees in development plans must be mandated because it won't happen as a result of convenience or greed.

Chair and Members of the Committee, On behalf of Lynnhaven River NOW, Virginia Beach’s leading conservation and restoration organization dedicated to clean water and healthy coastal ecosystems, I urge you to support HB 549. In a coastal city facing heavier rainfall, recurrent flooding, and ongoing water-quality challenges, tree canopy is not just a “nice to have”- it is critical infrastructure. Trees intercept and slow rainfall, reduce polluted runoff, increase infiltration, and strengthen soils. In doing so, they directly support stormwater management and water quality, helping keep sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants out of our rivers, creeks, and bays. Protecting the canopy also helps prevent erosion, stabilizing land and shorelines, and reducing sedimentation that harms aquatic habitat. HB 549 strengthens Virginia’s ability to conserve and rebuild canopy during development in ways that align with our mission. Most importantly, it recognizes that statewide minimums should not be a ceiling. Virginia Beach needs the authority to set stronger canopy-replacement standards where justified by local conditions - especially in communities with significant flooding risk and stormwater obligations. HB 549’s approach gives localities the flexibility to pursue higher canopy outcomes to meet real-world needs, including resilience and watershed protection. Tree canopy also supports ecological diversity, providing habitat, connecting green spaces, and improving neighborhood health. In Virginia Beach, where our economy and quality of life depend on clean water and thriving coastal ecosystems, maintaining and expanding the canopy is a practical, proven investment. HB 549 is a commonsense bill that helps ensure growth does not come at the expense of the natural systems that protect our community. We respectfully ask you to report HB 549 and support its passage. Respectfully submitted, Lynnhaven River NOW

The alarming loss of mature trees in our towns, neighborhoods and parklands has got to stop. The trees are under so many challenges…. Climate , invasive insects, invasive vines, disease, and development. It is such a travesty to see large healthy trees cut down for the convenience of home building. We must protect and conserve the treasures and providers of so many eco services we take for granted.

HB549 addresses a climate and socioeconomic issue with a solution that provides additional tools to protect public health, improve water quality, strengthen climate resilience, and save taxpayer dollars. Preserving mature trees and investing in trees as infrastructural assets is essential. We need to reduce the impact of extreme heat and protects residents, especially in areas of lower economic income during heat waves and flooding. The additional benefits would be improving storm water management and water quality, as well as public health and life expectancy. Trees are vital to our existence on so many level both personally and economically. Please add a tool to enforcement by increasing penalties for violating tree canopy ordinances to $2,500.

Please support bill 549. Our local governments need the flexibility it would provide to require developers of new houses to replace the tree canopy that is routinely destroyed in a meaningful way. Trees are not just a 'private property' issue. Trees are a community resource. When they are needlessly removed, they affect the entire community in terms of bird and wildlife reduction and heat island effects.

Please let us work to protect our local tree canopy! Over the last 10 years, we have lost a significant portion of our tree canopy as older houses are sold and the lots cleared for easier construction of new houses. The result impacts the whole community, not just that land owner. Our streets have gotten so much hotter and our neighborhood is less inviting. Please give us the local control so that we can work together as a community to find the right solution - rather than have no option other than what the developers want.

I strongly support HB549 as a way to conserve energy resources, contribute to flood control and enhance urban livability, all of which offer long term economic benefits to Virginia citizens. Local jurisdictions understand how tree cover can best be maintained while also supporting appropriate development objectives. Please vote to pass this bill out of committee and, eventually, into law.

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 support HB549. Trees are meant to outlive us. They provide fresh air, habitat for wildlife and curb flooding and the creation heat islands. Developers should have to prioritize conservation of mature trees and preserving tree canopy for the benefit of everyone involved.

Trees not only improve the quality of life for the people who live near them, they also save our county and taxpayers money. When mature trees are removed by developers unnecessarily, it costs our community and future generations.

Trees are an important part of our ecosystem and provide many benefits. Developments hit the easy button and clear cut too much simply to make it easier for their planning. Maybe they’ll drop in a few junk non native trees afterwards and say they’ve replaced what they removed which is nonsense. A quantity replacement isn’t a quality replacement when the removed item were mature trees. Let the local governments have say in what happens to trees in their areas.

HB 549 Mature shade trees add value to property, not only monetarily but also for absorption of stormwater runoff, cooling and energy efficiency, carbon sequestration all the while improving air quality, especially for those with cardiovascular issues. We need to maintain our tree canopy across the state and this is one sure way to do it. Developers can build around and preserve mature trees using calculations that preserve the root zone. Let’s build resiliently to prevent flooding, conserve energy, and promote cardiovascular health. Let’s keep our trees standing! They beautify and add real estate value to properties. It’s a win-win.

HB549 will help maintain the healthy tree canopy needed for stormwater management, for reducing extreme heat, and for keeping our air clean. It is distressing how many important trees in our neighborhood have been cut down in order to build ever-larger houses. We need to push back on this kind of development to keep our community healthy. Please vote YES on SB549.

I see our rural forests being cleared daily, and not just the pine plantations. The loss of mature trees worsens flooding and increases erosion. This also affects carbon sequestration, essential to combating climate change. In the cities, tree loss intensifies dangerous urban heat as well. Our Commonwealth needs trees, especially native trees, to survive. Please support HB549.

Please support HB549 and protect our trees.

Please support HB549 as it is critical to maintaining a healthy tree canopy, especially in semi-urban areas such as Arlington, VA. This is critical for stormwater management, for reducing occurrences of extreme heat, and for clean air. Currently we see our mature canopy trees being clear-cut for development, making our communities less healthy and adding to public expenses of health emergencies and flooding. Local governments need the authority to respond to local conditions and issues. This is an important issue to my community and I urge you to vote YES on HB549.

HB549 just says "one size doesn't fit all." Local jurisdictions would balance development needs with the known benefits of trees. A tailored approach, optimizing community benefits. Please support HB549.

Please support HB549 as it is critical to maintaining a healthy tree canopy, especially in semi-urban areas such as Arlington, VA. Since the zoning has been changed in Arlington, developers are quick to clear cut lots, even trees on the property lines, that do not need to be taken down to build what we eventually is constructed. Also, this is critical for stormwater management, for reducing occurrences of extreme heat, and for clean air. Local governments need the authority to respond to local conditions and issues. This is an important issue to my community and I urge you to vote YES on SB549

Arlington has a 40% canopy goal, which is critical to preserving biodiversity, carbon sequestering, erosion and flood control, and mental health for our residents and visitors. No one wants to live in a desert. I live in a low density residential area. Because Arlington has heavily developed its two metrorail corridors and has now expanded higher density to two additional corridors, we must obtain 60% tree canopy in the low density areas if we are to reach our goal. Development is the #1 threat, and Arlington has done its part to contribute well beyond its geographic weigh in providing new commercial and residential development, including providing taxes to the Commonwealth. Now we need the Commonwealth to help us preserve the most critical resource we have, our natural environment, our trees, and our keystone species. thank you

Our tree canopies are disappearing because of reckless construction in our community. Trees are important for our environment, our health, and our quality of life and provide important homes to the wildlife in our area. Communities should have the ability to protect trees from thoughtless removal that impacts neighborhoods. Many could be saved if construction companies would stop using clear cutting as their first step in building. Please support this bill!

Please support HB549 to strengthen standards for tree canopy replacement during development. This is an issue that I - and many people in my community - feel very strongly about.

I urge you vote yes on HB549 as it is critical to maintaining a healthy tree canopy, especially in semi-urban areas such as Arlington, VA. Our mature canopy trees are needed for stormwater management, for reducing occurrences of extreme heat, and for clean air. In our locality mature canopy trees being clear-cut for development, making our communities less healthy and adding to public expenses of health emergencies and flooding. Mature trees have economic benefits and will help maintain a healthy community. Local governments need the authority to respond to local conditions and issues. This is an important issue for my community and I urge you to vote YES on HB549.

Please support HB549 to strengthen community resilience by increasing the standards for tree canopy replacement during development, as directed by communities themselves. Air quality, stormwater management, and the health and well-being of residents should always come before developer interests! This bill is a step in the right direction toward prioritizing the health of both Virginia and Virginians.

Please consider the ramifications of this bill. We currently live in a neighborhood where an enormous housing project went in and didn’t leave a single tree. Not only did a displace many birds and animals. It has also added to the sound of the local roadway. Trees add so much. A noise buffer, a home to many birds and animals…and so much more. Please consider this wonderful Bill ! as it will make a great impact with further development. Thank you, Jackie

Please support HB549, it is a practical, locally driven solution that provides additional tools to protect public health, improve water quality, strengthen climate resilience, and save taxpayer dollars — while addressing Virginia’s alarming loss of tree canopy. Preserving mature trees and investing in trees as infrastructural assets: SUPPORT HB549 Conservation and replacement of trees during development process. Bill Patron: Delegate Patrick Hope Reduces extreme heat and protects residents during heat waves. Improves stormwater management and water quality. Saves local governments money and reduces infrastructure costs. Improves public health and life expectancy. Strengthens enforcement by increasing penalties for violating tree canopy ordinances to $2,500.

Please support HB549 and continue to grow our understandings of the benefits of strong and mature tree canopies in our state and communities. Trees are another of our vital partners in creating a healthy, stable and beautiful environment! The need for us to support nature rather than destroying it is paramount for the future health of our planet. Thank you!

While it is easier to clear cut land for development, it extracts a high cost to the environment and to the community. Replacing 50 year old oaks that support countless species of birds and insects with saplings is not an “even trade.” Please consider sustainable and environmentally friendly development practices. In the long run, they are economically better for the community.

Please support this bill. We need trees to help with the climate and wildlife. We need to preserve the older trees,.

SUPPORT HB549 I support HB549 because residents deserve the option to live in neighborhoods that prioritize their health and safety. Protecting and restoring tree canopy is a practical way to help reduce extreme heat, improve air quality, and reduce stormwater impacts, especially in neighborhoods that are already underfunded and high-burdened. While the health and safety of people should be the priority, this bill also makes sense for local government and the economy by reducing infrastructure costs.

I support this legislation.

I strongly support HB549. Mature tree canopy is an incredibly important natural resource. Trees protect the health of natural and human communities in numerous important ways, including by reducing flooding risk, offsetting the "heat island" effect, supporting biodiversity and natural food webs, and helping to filter damaging pollutants out of our air and water. Valuing and protecting our trees--particularly mature native trees--represents a significant investment in the wellbeing and quality of life of residents all across Virginia. Once lost, mature trees are not easily or quickly replaced. Please vote to let localities decide on the fate of their tree canopy cover. Thank you for your consideration.

I strongly support HB549. I have lived in Virginia for 10 years now, and the tree loss to development has been staggering. In one swipe, hundreds of mature trees are gone in the blink of an eye. Communities need to have input and basic safeguards need to be placed on development. Let's keep a few trees in Virginia, they are what makes Virginia so special! Trees keep our cities cool, our streets non-flooded, our air clean. Trees are a long term investment in our wellbeing and our quality of life. Trees mean lower risks of flooding and lower electricity bills. Let localities decide on the fate of their tree canopy cover. I strongly urge the committee to support this bill. Thank you for your consideration.

I strongly support House Bill 549, which gives Virginia localities the flexibility they need to conserve and restore tree canopy during development. Virginia has lost more than half a million acres of tree cover in the Chesapeake Bay watershed between 2013 and 2023, largely due to development and infrastructure expansion (according to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation). Trees are essential infrastructure that reduce flooding, filter stormwater, protect streams from erosion, and cool neighborhoods, yet many local governments lack the authority to require meaningful tree replacement when canopy is removed. HB 549 provides a balanced approach by empowering localities to establish stronger tree replacement standards while incentivizing the preservation of healthy, mature trees, helping protect residents, green spaces, waterways, and the long-term resilience of communities across the Commonwealth.

I strongly support House Bill 549, which gives Virginia localities the flexibility they need to conserve and restore tree canopy during development. Virginia has lost more than half a million acres of tree cover in the Chesapeake Bay watershed between 2013 and 2023, largely due to development and infrastructure expansion (according to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation). Trees are essential infrastructure that reduce flooding, filter stormwater, protect streams from erosion, and cool neighborhoods, yet many local governments lack the authority to require meaningful tree replacement when canopy is removed. HB 549 provides a balanced approach by empowering localities to establish stronger tree replacement standards while incentivizing the preservation of healthy, mature trees, helping protect residents, green spaces, waterways, and the long-term resilience of communities across the Commonwealth.

I support HB 549. We have suffered tremendous tree loss in Vienna due to development/teardowns, sidewalk renovations and Dominion Energy aggressively felling trees along the W&OD that bisects our town. HB 549 would allow us to modify our local tree ordinance to require a restoration of the target canopy within 10 years instead of 20 years. As other commentators have noted, trees are not just a luxury. They perform valuable functions like stormwater retention, reduce heat island effects, improve water quality and support wildlife. Please give us this tool to help preserve more trees and promote the planting of more trees!

I am writing in support of HB549. Our cities and localities need better tools to protect our tree canopy. From the analysis by the Chesapeake Bay Program, between 2014 and 2021, my City of Chesapeake lost 831 acres of tree canopy, primarily to development. In the same period, the City of Virginia Beach lost 1666 acres. And these loses were repeated in locality after locality. Current state law caps the maximum tree protection that city's can apply during development. We need to do better. And protecting trees is not mutually exclusive from creating affordable housing. When we build affordable housing, we also create a healthy community. The benefits of trees are very well documented - reducing urban heat, reducing cooling costs, reducing stormwater runoff and flooding, improving air quality, helping mental health, reducing crime, calming traffic, reducing noise pollution, protecting biodiversity. The law today limits the tree canopy in multi-familiy developments to 15% tree canopy - and that is at maturity after 20 years; when the development is new, the actuall tree canopy is much less. We need trees in our community. Everyone loves trees. But we keep cutting them down at an unsustainable pace. HB549 will give cities, town, and counties the ability to do better. Please pass this bill. Thank you, Rogard Ross President, Friends of Indian River

Vote yes on legislation that would require restructuring and development companies to replant trees that are removed during construction and to plant additional trees once renovations are complete. Trees are essential to our communities. They improve air quality, reduce stormwater runoff, lower urban temperatures, support wildlife, and enhance the health and well-being of residents. As development continues to grow, it is critical that we balance economic progress with environmental responsibility. Requiring tree replacement and post-project replanting is a practical, forward-thinking solution. It allows necessary development to proceed while ensuring that our natural resources are protected for future generations. Sustainable building practices strengthen our communities, protect property values, and demonstrate long-term stewardship of our environment.

This is a common sense bill that will help our city be more climate resilient, protect air quality, provide food and shelter for wildlife, absorb storm water runoff, and many other benefits. I have been personally affected by the destruction of developers as one completely bulldozed an old growth forest on the lot adjacent to mine to build a house. Without the trees we now have runoff and erosion on our slope as well as more extreme heat in summer. Please protect our trees, we can’t live without them.

Please vote YES to this proven solution that provides additional tools to protect public health, improve water quality, strengthen climate resilience, and save taxpayer dollars — while addressing Virginia’s alarming loss of tree canopy. Preserving mature trees and investing in trees as infrastructural assets: -Reduces extreme heat and protects residents during heat waves. -Improves stormwater management and water quality. -Saves local governments money and reduces infrastructure costs. -Improves public health and life expectancy. -Strengthens enforcement by increasing penalties for violating tree canopy ordinances to $2,500. This is critically important to human health as well as environmental protection.

The Richmond Tree Stewards urge you to support HB 549. By allowing local governments to require tree canopy cover goals to be met by developers within 10 years rather than 20, this bill would have positive impacts across a variety of realms, including but not limited to the environmental, public health, economic, and infrastructure arenas. Prioritizing the conservation of existing mature trees, as this bill does, would be particularly important for communities across Virginia because the benefits derived from trees increase with age and size. It often takes years for a newly planted tree to begin to meaningfully create shade, mitigate heat islands, minimize runoff, and filter the air, and it takes decades to fully recreate the lost benefits of a mature tree. In the short term, it can take over 40 newly planted trees to replace the lost value of a mature tree. Trees are not a luxury; they are a critical element of infrastructure. The presence of trees mitigates urban heat, manages stormwater, and improves water quality. Working to preserve trees and replace them when necessary is necessary for sustainable development and long-term community welfare. Passing HB 549 is an important first step in allowing local governments to treat trees as the public assets that they are. Please support HB 549.

Not all trees are performing ecosystem services the same way. A large body of research tells us that mature trees perform services like rainwater interception & uptake, carbon storage, air purification, soil stabilization, microclimate regulation/extreme heat mitigation, and others much more efficiently and at vastly higher rates than newly planted saplings. In the developed/urban canopy, where tree regeneration is slow and must be deliberately enabled by humans, and where many of our mature trees have already been culled, protection and retention of mature trees during development is crucial for protecting valuable ecosystem services as well as community well-being. This bill promotes sound, common sense policy that is firmly grounded in science and community health research. Strongly support passage of this bill!

Please pass this bill. Trees are essential, not just for good ol' air CO2 removal, but overall air quality. Marginalized communities deal with enough pollution as it is, due to placement of factories, power plants and landfills. Having more - and healthier - trees will reduce pollution in the air as trees can clean the air in and of themselves. Not to mention, "heat islands" in the cities need more shade. Nature and vegetation naturally improves mental health for people as well, which will make people more productive in their day-to-day lives, and can bring communities together. And this will gobble up a lot of water to reduce flooding, and block pollution runoff into the already-polluted water sources.

Please support SB549 as it is critical to maintaining a healthy tree canopy, especially in semi-urban areas such as Arlington, VA. This is critical for stormwater management, for reducing occurrences of extreme heat, and for clean air. Currently we see our mature canopy trees being clear-cut for development, making our communities less healthy and adding to public expenses of health emergencies and flooding. Local governments need the authority to respond to local conditions and issues. This is an important issue to my community and I urge you to vote YES on SB549.

Please support SB549 as it is critical to maintaining a healthy tree canopy, especially in semi-urban areas such as Arlington, VA. This is critical for stormwater management, for reducing occurrences of extreme heat, and for clean air. Currently we see our mature canopy trees being clear-cut for development, making our communities less healthy and adding to public expenses of health emergencies and flooding. Local governments need the authority to respond to local conditions and issues. This is an important issue to my community and I urge you to vote YES on SB549.

Many residents in Richmond already face negative effects of development, including a large concentration of residents living in urban heat islands in Southside. Responsible development includes keeping residents (and trees) in mind when designing and constructing. Richmond residents deserve infrastructure that supports reduced heat and flooding, not developments that make the problem worse. They aren't "just trees," they are integral pre-existing infrastructure that needs to be considered and protected.

Trees (particularly native tree species) are essential infrastructure. They cool the surrounding environment, provide shade for humans, reduce storm water runoff, are beautiful, reduce erosion, and provide food and cover for essential insects, pollinators, and other wildlife. Trees are also essential in allowing rain to move inland from the coast and make a huge difference in shaping our local climate. We NEED to prioritize the maintenance of a tree canopy during lot development.

As polls, "top places to live" lists, and real estate prices demonstrate, people want to live in places with green space, and mature trees. Having attractive green space in a city, town, or county, doesn't just "happen". It takes planning, funding, and laws and regulations to make it happen. In other words, it takes INTENTION. I support the passage of HB549. While writing this I keep thinking of the lyrics from the Joni Mitchell song Big Yellow Taxi- They paved paradise And put up a parking lot With a pink hotel *, a boutique And a swinging hot spot Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone

Please support HB549. Localities throughout Virginia should have the authority to set tree preservation and replacement standards to conserve mature trees during development. Preserving existing canopy protects the health of Virginians by mitigating heat islands and flooding. It also preserves the unique beauty of our landscapes and habitat for the pollinators that are essential for food production.

I support the conservation of trees for the many good things that they do. Thank you for also supporting this bill.

Trees are natural resource that take so long to grow, and need to be respected as critical infrastructure. I am in favor of all possible ordinances against developers in order to protect our trees. The short term profit is not worth the long term community benefits.

I support HB549. The preservation of mature trees and replacement of trees lost during the development process is necessary for the reduction of urban heat islands, to improve air quality, and to protect wildlife.

This is the obvious choice for Virginia. Trees are our number one defense against extreme heat, flooding, and poor air quality. Plus it makes HUMAN BEINGS healthier to be in places with ample trees and their shade. If development just concerned concrete and steel that would be one thing, but development concerns HUMAN BEINGS living and working and commuting and, hopefully, thriving. Without trees being considered in development we're leaving out the human aspect of development...TO OUR OWN PERIL. This bill must be passed.

This seems a no brainer and an integral part of not only keeping our community in better condition ecologically, but also keep it as a more 'desirable' place to live. It's common knowledge that the more 'green' a development is (aka lushly planted, vigorous tree canopy), the more tax payers want to live there. If you're unable to view this from a purely health/environmental perspective, then view the money side.

Mature trees must be protected to preserve habitat for wildlife and mitigate extreme weather. It takes years if not decades to regrow trees to maturity, so it is not enough for developers to cut them down and replant them - we must also protect the mature trees in these areas being developed.

Trees protect us from extreme heat, flooding, and poor air quality — and local governments should have the tools to keep them.

Trees provide shade, keeping our streets cooler. Cooler temperatures mean less money spent on cooling in the summer. Trees help wildlife survive. Trees add to property value by providing beauty to neighborhoods. Please support this bill.

I am writing today in support of HB 549. Loss of mature trees in urban environments leaves communities more vulnerable to extreme heat, flooding, and poor air quality. We are already experiencing extreme weather events and the further loss of trees does not help. Families living in highly burdened census tracts — where poverty and pollution overlap —experience hotter summers, higher asthma rates, and shorter life expectancies. More intense rain events driven by climate change are overwhelming stormwater systems, increasing flash flooding, property damage, and insurance costs for Virginia families. Reduced tree canopy is linked to higher rates of emergency room visits and health emergencies, particularly among Black residents and other historically overburdened communities. It is imperative that local and state governments be required to preserve or replace trees during the development process. It is very important for the future health of the Commonwealth, our children, and the earth. I urge you to consider a requirement of development sites to meet specified tree canopy or tree cover targets at a minimum within 10 years maximum, sooner as practical. We cannot delay. HB549 is a practical, locally driven solution that provides additional tools to protect public health, improve water quality, strengthen climate resilience, and save taxpayer dollars — while addressing Virginia’s alarming loss of tree canopy. Please ... SUPPORT HB549 Wanda L. Reese Resident of Chesterfield County, Virginia

SUPPORT HB549 Preserving mature trees and investing in trees as infrastructural assets: Reduces extreme heat and protects residents during heat waves. Improves stormwater management and water quality. Saves local governments money and reduces infrastructure costs. Improves public health and life expectancy.

I support HB549. Conservation and replacement of trees during development should be a common practice. Trees provide myriad benefits to people (e.g. shade, flood mitigation, CO2 emissions) and wildlife (primarily food and shelter).

I support HB 549, which would help communities across the Commonwealth of Virginia preserve their vital tree canopies. Higher tree canopies are associated with higher property values, better air quality, and better mental health. Communities should be allowed to preserve them.

We need a mechanism to protect private trees in Richmond. In the last decade, Richmond has lost a considerable percentage of its canopy to development. I am excited about the growth of our city, but would like it to be done equitably and sustainably. According to the recent CBF Tree Cover Status and change report, we lost 199 Acres of tree cover from 2014 to 2021.

I am a resident of Arlington County and I strong support HB549. Arlington is rapidly losing trees that cool neighborhoods, protect people's health, and controls stormwater runoff. HB549 would allow communities like Arlington greater power to protect these trees. Protecting tree canopies is also an environmental justice issue, since disadvantaged neighborhoods tend to have less tree coverage and are subsequently hotter. This means that this bill is very much compatible with the goals of equity and care for the environment.

I strongly support HP 549 that will give localities in dense urban and suburban areas an important tool to protect and expand their tree canopy coverage. In Arlington, on a daily basis we are losing mature trees--I am facing the loss of four mature trees due to redevelopment of the house next to mine. Trees cool our neighborhoods, manage stormwater runoff, filter pollutants, and improves physical and mental health. In addition, equitable distribution of tree canopy coverage is an environmental justice issue.  In Arlington, neighborhoods with a higher share low income and disadvantaged residents also have fewer trees and temperatures during the summer can be 10 degrees or more higher than in affluent and leafy neighborhoods. Including meaningful tree canopy coverage in all developments, and particularly for affordable housing projects, is not only compatible with expanding housing stock but the right thing to do. 

I am a medical student that is very concerned about our public health and I feel this bill (HB 549) is an excellent way to support public health through actionable support of green spaces, reducing extreme heat, and especially supporting our most marginalized groups. Thank you

This bill will allow local governments to require the preservation or replacement of trees during development. HB549 is a practical, locally driven solution that provides additional tools to protect public health, improve water quality, strengthen climate resilience, and save taxpayer dollars — while addressing Virginia’s alarming loss of tree canopy. Richmond is known for its trees. Recent hurricanes which have ripped up thousands of trees and devastated some neighborhoods have shown us how precious they are. Trees sequester carbon, provide shade and food for wildlife. They take decades to grow, making them irreplaceable. I urge you to move forward this practical, common sense bill.

Too often development does not prioritize the preservation of old trees which provide numerous benefits to humans, wildlife, and the air quality alike. Please support this bill

Please protect the trees!

Here’s a polished, professional paragraph you can use: I strongly support HB549. As a professional ecologist, I recognize how essential mature trees are to the health and resilience of communities across Virginia. Trees provide critical ecosystem services—cooling neighborhoods during extreme heat, improving air quality, reducing stormwater runoff, supporting wildlife habitat, and enhancing overall quality of life for residents. Protecting existing canopy and ensuring meaningful replacement during development is a practical, science‑based approach that will benefit every Virginian, now and for generations to come.

I strongly support this bill to try to protect more large, old trees from developers. As a Richmond resident, I know urban and suburban trees prevent heat deserts, provide wildlife habitat, filter water, retain methane in the atmosphere, and add to the value of my home and neighborhood. Too often I’ve seen trees like a beautiful, very large one on my street in Libbie Mill midtown, be mowed down to build housing or retail (despite a hawk nest in its branches). Residents in historically minority neighbors also lose trees at a higher rate than elsewhere. Please set up more requirements about tree protection by developers to benefit us all.

Trees are an important part of healthy communities!! People want to thrive, not just survive. Planting trees is a smart investment! People like to live in neighborhoods with trees! More people = more trees.

I support this bill, but wish it went further in allowing localities to manage tree canopy within there jurisdictions. Painting the Commonwealth with a single brush stroke does not take into account how vastly different some are than others. The bill as drafted allows all localities to implement greater tree canopy requirements during development than current legislation, which is absolutely a step in the right direction. But it focuses on the number of units per acre to determine how great of a tree canopy requirement can be implemented. For a locality like the City of Richmond, residential density is quite high, but our need for trees is higher. I live in a community with small houses on small lots, which is also a heat island due to years of tree loss. It could easily support 25-30% tree canopy requirements, but under the draft legislation, the city could only require 10% tree canopy during development because of the zoned density per acre. What we really need is the ability to set the percentage of tree canopy based on our zoning districts the way we define them and not by the random measure of "units per acre." That way we can plan for and build the types of communities we want to live in. We are able to do it for the types of buildings through the zoning ordinance, so why can't we do it for the type of natural environment, too? We need more trees. We have already planted over 160 new street trees throughout our neighborhood, but we need hundreds more to improve the temperature and health outcomes for my neighbors. We need developers to help by recognizing when they come into our community that they have an impact and trees are an asset to everyone. Unfortunately, many seem only interested in what maximizes their profit. One recently cleaned an entire lot taking down the house (full of contents) and twelve mature trees as the first step of their project. Now they want to build two duplexes and while the plan submitted with the special use permit application shows the houses in great detail, it does not show a single tree being replanted. We need to have the ability as a city and as a community to say this is not acceptable no matter what the "unit per acre" density is. Again, I support this bill if it is the best we can do this year, but I know we can do better and allow localities to plan and manage their natural environment the same way we manage buildings, roads, water, sewer and other critical infrastructure. There is little infrastructure more critical than trees.

Please support HB549 regarding the conservation and replacement of trees during the development process. There are no requirements to consider the old growth trees when developing wooded property . Companies simply clearcut everything, to make it easier to build. It is important to conserve our old growth trees and incorporate as many as possible into the design. It takes a long time for baby trees to be as effective as the older one that were mowed down. We deserve better planning and efforts to increase the conservation of these older trees, many who have been around longer than you or I.

Comments Document

My name is Kami Blatt, and I am submitting this comment on behalf of Southside ReLeaf in strong support of HB 549. Southside ReLeaf works in communities across Southside Richmond that have faced decades of disinvestment and exclusion from environmental protections. These neighborhoods consistently have some of the lowest tree canopy coverage in the region and some of the worst health outcomes. In Southside Richmond, residents can expect to live nearly 20 years less than those in wealthier parts of the region. This gap is driven by factors such as extreme heat exposure, poor air quality, flooding, and limited access to green space. Tree canopy plays a critical role in addressing these disparities. Trees lower neighborhood temperatures during extreme heat, reduce harmful air pollution, manage stormwater and reduce flooding, and support both physical and mental health. In communities with limited tree coverage, residents are more vulnerable to heat related illness, asthma, cardiovascular disease, and other climate related health risks. HB 549 is especially important because it prioritizes the protection of mature trees, which provide the greatest environmental and health benefits. Mature trees offer significantly more cooling, pollution reduction, and stormwater absorption than newly planted trees. Once removed, these benefits cannot be quickly replaced. When tree removal does occur, meaningful replacement is essential to ensure that canopy loss does not compound existing health and environmental harms over time. As climate change accelerates and extreme heat and storms become more frequent, the loss of tree canopy poses serious risks to community health and safety. Communities should not have to choose between development and their health or between economic growth and climate resilience. HB 549 takes an important step toward treating tree canopy as essential infrastructure. By protecting mature trees and strengthening replacement standards, this legislation helps ensure development does not further burden communities that are already overexposed to environmental and health risks. We ask that you pass HB 549 because protecting tree canopy is essential to public health, climate resilience, and community safety across the Commonwealth.

I strongly support Patrick Hope's HB 549. Between 2013 and 2023 Virginia lost over 500,000 acres of forest and tree canopy, and development has not been slowing down. Allowing localities additional authority to establish tree canopy goals such as shortening the time from 20 years to 10 years in which certain tree canopy cover percentages should be met at the development site will do a lot to stem tree loss in Virginia.

I strongly support HB549 because protecting and replacing trees is essential to public health, climate resilience, and community wellbeing.

I support this bill fully and wish it went even further to not restrict locality’s to enforce protection of existing trees and increase our tree canopy. This is a great start though.

Why This Matters Loss of mature trees in urban environments leaves communities more vulnerable to extreme heat, flooding, and poor air quality. Families living in highly burdened census tracts — where poverty and pollution overlap — experience hotter summers, higher asthma rates, and shorter life expectancies. More intense rain events driven by climate change are overwhelming stormwater systems, increasing flash flooding, property damage, and insurance costs for Virginia families. Reduced tree canopy is linked to higher rates of emergency room visits and health emergencies, particularly among Black residents and other historically overburdened communities. Prepared by: Kami Blatt, Policy Specialist | kami@southsidereleaf.org Summary The bill extends authority, currently limited to Planning District 8, to all localities statewide, allowing local governments to require the preservation or replacement of trees during the development process. It also authorizes localities to establish higher tree canopy replacement standards based on factors such as development density, lot size, or other locally relevant measures. These standards are intended to reduce urban heat islands, collect stormwater pollution, improve air quality, and strengthen community resilience. Legislation includes several technical changes, such as requiring development sites to meet specified tree canopy or tree cover targets within 10 years rather than 20 years. Reasons to Support HB549 is a practical, locally driven solution that provides additional tools to protect public health, improve water quality, strengthen climate resilience, and save taxpayer dollars — while addressing Virginia’s alarming loss of tree canopy. Preserving mature trees and investing in trees as infrastructural assets: SUPPORT HB549 Conservation and replacement of trees during development process. Bill Patron: Delegate Patrick Hope Reduces extreme heat and protects residents during heat waves. Improves stormwater management and water quality. Saves local governments money and reduces infrastructure costs. Improves public health and life expectancy. Strengthens enforcement by increasing penalties for violating tree canopy ordinance(s.) Please protect our tree canopy from development clearing by requiring the preservation AND timely replacement of vital cooling trees.

Tree canopies reduce extreme heat and protects residents during heat waves, which Richmond has seen quite an increase in the past decade.

Preserving tree canopy improves the health of communities and the people that live in them. Trees improve air quality and helps with storm water management. I work for a new home developer and we want to see better tree management and agree our industry can and should be forced by the municipalitues they build in to maintain or regrow trees displaced for development.

Bill HB549: Trees cool neighborhoods and cities - the difference is felt significantly between streets with mature tree canopy and streets without. I cannot imagine the discomfort and stress that gets added to an already too hot summer, when there is no shade to be found where we work and especially, where we live. Though I am fortunate to have moved to a tree-lined street, since my arrival here four years ago, five trees have died, four of those dead trees have been removed, NONE as yet have been replaced. It's alarming, unattractive, and I am now faced with the prospect of a summer with no tree to shade my apartment during the hottest parts of the day. Please, do whatever it requires to plant, replace, and prune (for health) more trees!

As president of Richmond Tree Stewards, I endorse HB549 for all of the health, ecological, economic and social benefits outlined by other supporters. Trees, whether on private or public property, have a fundamental and positive impact on the character, beauty, health, and even safety of a community. This legislation fills a gap in local government's ability to guide development while protecting our valuable tree canopy. H.B. 549 is a logical and necessary tool for localities seeking a balance between their natural and built environment. We ask your support.

SUPPORT HB549 This is a community driven effort to support the conservation and replacement of trees during development.

SUPPORT HB549 this is a community driven effort to support the conservation and replacement of trees during development. This measure would improve stormwater management and water quality. Saves local governments money and reduces infrastructure costs. Improves public health and life expectancy. Strengthens enforcement by increasing penalties

This bill will provide the authority needed across the Commonwealth for localities to reduce health hazards, stormwater runoff, higher temperatures (also known as the heat island effect), and increased energy costs for cooling in urban communities. It will also protect the old stock tree cover and aesthetic for which Virginia cities are known. This is a common-sense way to maintain the benefits we receive from trees and allow for the construction of new homes, businesses, and other facilities. I encourage you to vote in support of HB549.

Comments Document

HB549 is a practical, locally driven solution that provides additional tools to protect public health, improve water quality, strengthen climate resilience, and save taxpayer dollars — while addressing Virginia’s alarming loss of tree canopy. Preserving mature trees and investing in trees as infrastructural assets: -Reduces extreme heat and protects residents during heat waves. -Improves stormwater management and water quality. -Saves local governments money and reduces infrastructure costs. -Improves public health and life expectancy. -Strengthens enforcement by increasing penalties for violating tree canopy ordinances to $2,500. See more in prepared attachment.

SUPPORT HB549 HB549 is a practical, locally driven solution that provides additional tools to protect public health, improve water quality, strengthen climate resilience, and save taxpayer dollars — while addressing Virginia’s alarming loss of tree canopy. Preserving mature trees and investing in trees as infrastructural assets: Reduces extreme heat and protects residents during heat waves. Improves stormwater management and water quality. Saves local governments money and reduces infrastructure costs. Improves public health and life expectancy. Strengthens enforcement by increasing penalties for violating tree canopy ordinances to $2,500.

HB 1234 Please facilitate the ease of employing solar canopies in parking lots for both cheap electricity and utilizing non-green space. HB 549 Please allow localities strong input in tree loss mitigation and replacement in development.

I strongly support HB549 because protecting and replacing trees is essential to public health, climate resilience, and community wellbeing across Virginia. The loss of mature tree canopy leaves neighborhoods more vulnerable to extreme heat, flooding, and poor air quality — impacts that fall hardest on low-income and historically overburdened communities. By giving local governments the authority to preserve trees and set stronger canopy standards, this bill provides a practical, locally driven tool to reduce urban heat islands, manage stormwater, and improve air quality. Trees are critical infrastructure, and HB549 helps ensure Virginia invests in them wisely and equitably.

Please preserve and replace trees during development. Please don't pave our paradise with bare dirt and parking lots.

I am a resident of a heat island in Richmond. Without the protection of tree canopy, temperatures in summer get hotter here than in wealthier areas of the region. It makes no sense for developers to remove all trees from an area just to replace them with non native plantings of one type of tree that will take decades to equal what was removed. This common sense approach will save localities the cost of mitigating flooding and poor air quality. Greater tree canopy protects public health and prevents things like overwhelming storm water runoff. Every community in the Commonwealth deserves this.

Comments Document

See attached.

I am writing in support of Del. Hope's efforts to preserve (and even enhance) vital tree canopy. My neighborhood (Cherrydale in Arlington VA) has seen the loss of much of our tree canopy through redevelopment of single-family homes and severe flooding has been a very clear result of this loss.

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.

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 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.

Vote to help our community!

If you’re tired of the 9-to-5 grind or just want a way to put some extra cash in your pocket every week, I have something for you. Companies are currently looking for remote writers to handle: Article Writing Blog Posts Social Media Content Live Chat Support No experience is necessary and full training is provided. But before you apply, you need to see which role you’re best suited for. Go here to take the Writing Job Quiz. ---> http://PaidToWrite.Online/ Once you finish the quiz, you’ll get a breakdown of the best opportunities available for you right now. Visit -----> http://PaidToWrite.Online/

The alarming loss of mature trees in our towns, neighborhoods and parklands has got to stop. The trees are under so many challenges…. Climate , invasive insects, invasive vines, disease, and development. It is such a travesty to see large healthy trees cut down for the convenience of home building. We must protect and conserve the treasures and providers of so many eco services we take for granted.

Areas in the Town of Vienna have lost more than 30 percent of its tree canopy over the past 10 years as a result of new home construction. Please support this bill, which would allow Vienna to have the same tree replacement requirements that are in place in Fairfax County. It is not fair that Vienna cannot have a replacement policy that is already in place in Fairfax County. This bill will correct that situation.

Invasives should be pulled or killed by herbicide and not be permitted to be sold in nurseries

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.

I support HB 995. We have suffered tremendous tree loss in Vienna due to development/teardowns, sidewalk renovations and Dominion Energy aggressively felling trees along the W&OD that bisects our town. HB 995 would allow us to modify our local tree ordinance to require a restoration to the target canopy within 10 years instead of 20 years. As other commentators have noted, trees are not just a luxury. They perform valuable functions like stormwater retention, reduce heat island effects, improve water quality and support wildlife. Please give us this tool to help preserve more trees and promote the planting of more trees!

The Town of Vienna is requesting tree canopy replacement of 20% in 10 years instead of 20 years. We have had a lot of new homes built and a lot of tree loss in our town. This bill would help with stormwater management and improve the environmental quality in Vienna.

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.

Comments Document

I am President of the Rappahannock League for Environmental Protection (RLEP) and have been a resident of Rappahannock County for the past 38 years. In addition to my role with RLEP, I am also a licensed real estate agent and have served on our Planning Commission for many years. RLEP, an organization of concerned citizens, taxpayers and landowners in Rappahannock County, has worked for over fifty years to protect our natural resources and the rural character of our county. With a mailing list of over 800 people and strong membership support, RLEP has played a key role in guiding our elected officials toward prudent, community-oriented decisions. I am writing to express my support for HB535 and HB1083. These bills are a positive first step toward addressing the unintended consequences of efforts to “streamline” Virginia’s subdivision and site plan laws brought about by SB974 and HB2660. Framed as technical reforms to help expand the housing market, these new laws inadvertently create unique burdens on low population counties. By mandating the use of a designated agent rather than allow review by a full Planning Commission, smaller counties like Rappahannock are at risk because we do not have adequate resources to grow the staff to contend with multiple applications for subdivisions. In the case of Rappahannock County, our Office of Zoning Administration is staffed by a single person. This fact, coupled with limited budget resources means county residents are at risk of rushed decisions and likely inadvertent mistakes. In addition, in smaller population rural counties, each subdivision has a greater impact on our community than subdivisions in larger population counties. Such decisions deserve the careful consideration of our Planning Commission—the entity whose members are appointed by our elected officials to consider the best interests of our community. These decisions should not be made by staff, acting alone. The 2025 laws created several challenges for small population counties, which are detailed in the full comments attached to this public comment. Thoughtful planning takes time and genuine community engagement. We urge you to revisit SB974 and HB 2660 and work toward a more balanced approach for smaller population counties.

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.

NAACP, VSC support this bill 1394