Conditional zoning; provisions applicable to all rezoning proffers, definitions. (HB770)

Introduced By

Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Conditional zoning. Provides that no locality shall (i) request or accept any unreasonable proffer in connection with a rezoning or a proffer condition amendment as a condition of approval of a new residential development or new residential use or (ii) deny any rezoning application, including an application for amendment to an existing proffer, for a new residential development or new residential use where such denial is based on an applicants failure or refusal to submit, or remain subject to, an unreasonable proffer. A proffer shall be deemed unreasonable unless it addresses an impact that is specifically and uniquely attributable to a proposed new residential development or other new residential use applied for. An off-site proffer shall be deemed unreasonable pursuant to the above unless it addresses an impact to an off-site public facility, such that, (a) the new residential development or new residential use creates a need, or an identifiable portion of a need, for one or more public facility improvements in excess of existing public facility capacity at the time of the rezoning or proffer condition amendment, and (b) each such new residential development or new residential use applied for receives a direct and material benefit from a proffer made with respect to any such public facility improvements. In any action in which a locality has denied a rezoning or an amendment to an existing proffer and the aggrieved applicant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it refused or failed to submit, or remain subject to, an unreasonable proffer that it has proven was suggested, requested, or required, formally or informally, by the locality, the court shall presume, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, that such refusal or failure was the controlling basis for the denial. The bill also provides that certain conditional rezoning proffers related to building materials, finishes, methods of construction, or design features on a new residential development are prohibited. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/12/2016Committee
01/12/2016Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/16 16103862D
01/12/2016Referred to Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns
01/21/2016Assigned to sub: Subcommittee #2
01/21/2016Assigned CC & T sub: Subcommittee #2
01/27/2016Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (10-Y 0-N)
01/28/2016Impact statement from DHCD (HB770)
01/29/2016Reported from Counties, Cities and Towns with substitute (19-Y 2-N) (see vote tally)
01/29/2016Committee substitute printed 16104806D-H1
02/01/2016Read first time
02/02/2016Passed by for the day
02/03/2016Read second time
02/03/2016Committee substitute agreed to 16104806D-H1
02/03/2016Amendment by Delegate Dudenhefer agreed to
02/03/2016Engrossed by House - committee substitute with amendment HB770EH1
02/03/2016Printed as engrossed 16104806D-EH1
02/04/2016Read third time and passed House (68-Y 27-N 2-A)
02/04/2016VOTE: PASSAGE (68-Y 27-N 2-A) (see vote tally)
02/05/2016Constitutional reading dispensed
02/05/2016Referred to Committee on Local Government
02/19/2016Impact statement from DHCD (HB770EH1)
03/01/2016Stricken from docket by Local Government (12-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)

Duplicate Bills

The following bills are identical to this one: SB549.

Comments

Tom writes:

This bill appears to weaken local governmental authority to negotiate with developers for proffers to secure funding to infrastructure - roads, schools, parks, etc - that the development may necessitate. So those costs would have to be picked up by taxpayers. New developments should pay for the costs of their impacts on a community.

Nelson Ruffin writes:

People need to be reminded that developers once had the right to hold people legally responsible if they even spoke out against them. Tell everyone that this is essentially Republican Obamacare for the housing industry and the middle class will pay for all the rich landowners whims. Urge the governor to veto the legislation. I am a conservative republican and I am appalled at. No wonder this state is going Democratic.