Zoning ordinances shall be for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety or general welfare of the public and of further accomplishing the objectives of § 15.2-2200. To these ends, such ordinances shall be designed to give reasonable consideration to each of the following purposes, where applicable: (i) to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood, impounding structure failure, crime and other dangers; (ii) to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; (iii) to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; (iv) to facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; (v) to protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas and working waterfront development areas; (vi) to protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, impounding structure failure, panic or other dangers; (vii) to encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (viii) to provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; (ix) to protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; (x) to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing suitable for meeting the current and future needs of the locality as well as a reasonable proportion of the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated; (xi) to provide reasonable protection against encroachment upon military bases, military installations, and military airports and their adjacent safety areas, excluding armories operated by the Virginia National Guard; and (xii) to provide reasonable modifications in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.) or state and federal fair housing laws, as applicable. Such ordinance may also include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with applicable state water quality standards, to protect surface water and ground water as defined in § 62.1-255.
Code 1950, §§ 15-821, 15-968.3; 1962, c. 407, § 15.1-489; 1966, c. 344; 1968, c. 407; 1975, c. 641; 1976, c. 642; 1980, c. 321; 1983, c. 439; 1988, c. 439; 1989, cc. 447, 449; 1990, cc. 19, 169, 384; 1992, c. 812; 1993, cc. 758, 884; 1997, c. 587; 2004, c. 799; 2008, c. 491; 2017, c. 216; 2018, c. 757.
Notes of Decisions
Bd. OF SUP'RS v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 604 S.E.2d 7 (Va. 2004).
· cites it 2× “" Code § 15.2-2283. Thus, the Board's interest in the proper application of its zoning ordinances is an interest shared by the public and is no different than the public's interest in the valid enforcement of such ordinances.”
Bd. of Supervisors v. Countryside Inv. Co., 522 S.E.2d 610 (Va. 1999).
· cites it 2× “2 Our holding does not impair the County’s power to enact zoning ordinances which prescribe minimum lot area requirements, Code § 15.”
Cnty. of Chesterfield v. Windy Hill, Ltd., 559 S.E.2d 627 (Va. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” Code § 15.2-2283. The zoning ordinance of Chesterfield County in effect when the conditional use permit was issued in 1981 echoed this general purpose, see former Chesterfield County Code § 21-1, and the same is true of the present zoning ordinance, see current Chesterfield…”
McGhee v. Zoning Appeals Bd., 57 Va. Cir. 47 (2001).
· cites it 2× “1-1; see Virginia Code § 15.2-2283. As noted earlier (see supra), the City’s Code specifies that during property development reasonable efforts must be made to preserve and protect trees of six inch caliper or larger, ornamental trees, and trees within setbacks, along property…”
Anne Edwards Hartley v. Bd. of Supervisors of Brunswick Cnty., Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 20× “7 The court denied the demurrer as to Hartley’s claims that the upzoning decision was arbitrary and capricious based on her allegations that (1) the decision failed to align with the comprehensive plan and (2) the Board failed to consider the factors listed in Code §§ 15.2-2283…”
Anne Edwards Hartley v. Bd. of Supervisors of Brunswick Cnty., Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 19× “See Code § 15.2-2283. Failure to align with the comprehensive plan does not render a zoning amendment arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law; rather, a reviewing court must “apply the presumption of validity” to the legislative action and evaluate whether the change was…”
James R. Garrett v. Roanoke City Council (Va. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 7× “To these ends, such ordinances shall be designed to give reasonable consideration to” certain enumerated “purposes, where applicable.” The statute then lists numerous purposes, ranging from the provision of “adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire,…”
Douglas L. Miller v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 6× “” Code § 15.2-2283. Thus, counties may reasonably consider the following in enacting zoning ordinances: “(i) adequate light, air, convenience of access .”
— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2283(ii) — 2 cases
Anne Edwards Hartley v. Bd. of Supervisors of Brunswick Cnty., Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
“7 The court denied the demurrer as to Hartley’s claims that the upzoning decision was arbitrary and capricious based on her allegations that (1) the decision failed to align with the comprehensive plan and (2) the Board failed to consider the factors listed in Code §§ 15.2-2283…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2283(iv) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2283(vii) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2283(viii) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.