Recent Virginia land‑use changes narrow review timeframes, alter notice rules and add new consumer and disclosure requirements

Adam Melita of Planning staff gave an overview of state legislative changes passed by the 2025 Virginia General Assembly that affect local planning and zoning practice.

Melita said the changes fall into several categories: public‑hearing and notice tweaks; consumer disclosure mandates; new retail signage requirements for certain plants; modified civil penalty caps for zoning civil penalties on multifamily properties; and significant reductions in local review timeframes for site plans and subdivision plats.

Items Melita summarized included: - Notice: the statutory requirement for mailed notice to adjacent property owners may be satisfied by first‑class mail (previously required certified or registered mail); staff must place an affidavit in the record verifying mailing if using first‑class mail. The city’s existing practice of mailing notices to owners within 300 feet will continue but the affidavit step is new. - Consumer/real‑estate disclosures: the Virginia Real Estate Board disclosure form will explicitly say sellers make no warranty about proximity to airports/noise zones and similar caveats (following earlier additions like flood‑zone language). - Retail plant signage: retail sellers of plants for outdoor use must post signage identifying 39 listed invasive species by Latin name beginning July 1; retailers face criminal penalties for inadequate signage. - Civil penalties: the statute raises maximum civil penalties available for certain zoning civil penalties (relevant to short‑term rental enforcement) for multifamily properties, increasing per‑violation caps and an overall maximum (staff said the change applies only to properties used or zoned for multifamily residential uses). - Review deadlines and consequences: the General Assembly shortened local review timeframes — for example, initial review times and resubmittal turnaround for preliminary plats, site plans and final plats have been reduced (specific statutory timelines cited by staff). Melita stressed that if the locality fails to act within some statutory deadlines, an application can be deemed approved under state law; in other cases the fourth resubmittal must be elevated to the planning director for a seven‑day review, with options to approve, require minor fixes, or disapprove with reasons.

Why it matters: Melita warned that shortened deadlines and the “deemed approved” consequences will require revisions to ordinance language and internal review processes; staff advised the commission that the city will need to designate “agents” (a statutory concept the new law references) to carry certain approval authority and to align local processes with the shorter statutory timeframes.

Next steps: staff said they will draft text amendments to the zoning ordinance and internal process changes to meet the new statutory deadlines, coordinate with legal counsel about the designated‑agent provisions, and adjust notice procedures to include the affidavit when first‑class mail is used.