Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2297 (2026)

Same; conditions as part of a rezoning or amendment to zoning map

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A zoning ordinance may include and provide for the voluntary proffering in writing, by the owner, of reasonable conditions, prior to a public hearing before the governing body, in addition to the regulations provided for the zoning district or zone by the ordinance, as a part of a rezoning or amendment to a zoning map; provided that (i) the rezoning itself must give rise for the need for the conditions; (ii) the conditions shall have a reasonable relation to the rezoning; (iii) the conditions shall not include a cash contribution to the locality; (iv) the conditions shall not include mandatory dedication of real or personal property for open space, parks, schools, fire departments or other public facilities not otherwise provided for in § 15.2-2241; (v) the conditions shall not include a requirement that the applicant create a property owners' association under the Property Owners' Association Act (§ 55.1-1800 et seq.) which includes an express further condition that members of a property owners' association pay an assessment for the maintenance of public facilities owned in fee by a public entity, including open space, parks, schools, fire departments and other public facilities not otherwise provided for in § 15.2-2241; however, such facilities shall not include sidewalks, special street signs or markers, or special street lighting in public rights-of-way not maintained by the Department of Transportation; (vi) the conditions shall not include payment for or construction of off-site improvements except those provided for in § 15.2-2241; (vii) no condition shall be proffered that is not related to the physical development or physical operation of the property; and (viii) all such conditions shall be in conformity with the comprehensive plan as defined in § 15.2-2223. The governing body may also accept amended proffers once the public hearing has begun if the amended proffers do not materially affect the overall proposal. Once proffered and accepted as part of an amendment to the zoning ordinance, the conditions shall continue in effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the property covered by the conditions. However, the conditions shall continue if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance.

B. In the event proffered conditions include a requirement for the dedication of real property of substantial value or construction of substantial public improvements, the need for which is not generated solely by the rezoning itself, then no amendments to the zoning map for the property subject to such conditions, nor the conditions themselves, nor any amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance with respect to the zoning district applicable thereto initiated by the governing body, which eliminate, or materially restrict, reduce, or modify the uses, the floor area ratio, or the density of use permitted in the zoning district applicable to such property, shall be effective with respect to such property unless there has been mistake, fraud, or a change in circumstances substantially affecting the public health, safety, or welfare.

C. Any landowner who has prior to July 1, 1990, proffered the dedication of real property of substantial value or construction of substantial public improvements, the need for which is not generated solely by the rezoning itself, but who has not substantially implemented such proffers prior to July 1, 1990, shall advise the local governing body by certified mail prior to July 1, 1991, that he intends to proceed with the implementation of such proffers. The notice shall identify the property to be developed, the zoning district, and the proffers applicable thereto. Thereafter, any landowner giving such notice shall have until July 1, 1995, substantially to implement the proffers, or such later time as the governing body may allow. Thereafter, the landowner in good faith shall diligently pursue the completion of the development of the property.

Any landowner who complies with the requirements of this subsection shall be entitled to the protection against action initiated by the governing body affecting use, floor area ratio, and density set out in subsection B, unless there has been mistake, fraud, or a change in circumstances substantially affecting the public health, safety, or welfare, but any landowner failing to comply with the requirements of this subsection shall acquire no rights pursuant to this section.

D. The provisions of subsections B and C of this section shall be effective prospectively only, and not retroactively, and shall not apply to any zoning ordinance text amendments which may have been enacted prior to March 10, 1990. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to affect any litigation pending prior to July 1, 1990, or any such litigation nonsuited and thereafter refiled.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect or impair the authority of a governing body to:

1. Accept proffered conditions which include provisions for timing or phasing of dedications, payments, or improvements; or

2. Accept or impose valid conditions pursuant to subdivision A 3 of § 15.2-2286 or other provision of law.

1978, c. 320, § 15.1-491.2; 1982, c. 293; 1990, c. 868; 1997, c. 587; 2001, c. 703; 2006, c. 450.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case: Jefferson Green Unit Owners v. Gwinn, 551 S.E.2d 339 (Va. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jefferson Green Unit Owners v. Gwinn, 551 S.E.2d 339 (Va. 2001). · cites it 29× “3 void as a matter of public policy and in violation of Code §§ 15.2-2297 and -1102. After considering the parties' memoranda and argument, the circuit court determined that Code § 15.”

Riverview Farm Assocs. Virginia Gen. P'ship v. Bd. of Supervisors, 528 S.E.2d 99 (Va. 2000). · cites it 6× “Code § 15.2-2297 and Charles City County Ordinance § 13.”

Jefferson Green Unit Owners Ass'n v. Gwinn, 551 S.E.2d 339 (Va. 2001). · cites it 29× “3 void as a matter of public policy and in violation of Code §§ 15.2-2297 and -1102. After considering the parties’ memoranda and argument, the circuit court determined that Code § 15.”

Hale v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Town of Blacksburg, 673 S.E.2d 170 (Va. 2009). · cites it 2× “; see Code §§ 15.2-2297(A) and 15.2-2303(A). Code § 15.”

Rowland v. Town Council of Warrenton (Va. 2020). · cites it 21× “Although Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2297 and 15.2-2298 (and Warrenton Zoning Ordinance § 11-3.”

Gwinn v. Jefferson Green Unit Owners' Ass'n, 54 Va. Cir. 79 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2000). · cites it 14× “This Court finds the County’s arguments to be compelling and rules that § 15.”

Anne Edwards Hartley v. Bd. of Supervisors of Brunswick Cnty., Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “7 At oral argument, Hartley also proposed that the entire town of Ebony might be considered a statutory “feature” which must be developed in substantial accord with the comprehensive plan.”

Anne Edwards Hartley v. Bd. of Supervisors of Brunswick Cnty., Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “However, that case only shows that under Code § 15.2-2297(A)(viii), any proffered conditions made with a rezoning application must be consistent with the comprehensive plan.”

Heflin v. Caroline Cnty., 83 Va. Cir. 507 (Caroline Cir. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3× “To induce the zoning changes, the applicant made off site Va. Code § 15.2-2297(A) proffers, one of which required the trucks to use a private right of way over a privately owned A-l zoned parcel in lieu of using public highways.”

Merrick Land Trust I v. Louisa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 54 Va. Cir. 378 (Louisa Cir. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “Count II: Lack of Notice of Conditions to Rezoning Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2297 allows that a zoning ordinance “may include and provide for the voluntary proffering in writing, by the owner, of reasonable conditions, prior to a public hearing before the governing body.”

Patrick v. McHale, 54 Va. Cir. 67 (Chesterfield Cir. Ct. 2000). “Sections 15.2-2297 and 15.2-2298 of the Virginia Code allow the County to accept proffered conditions to alleviate the impact on public services and accept cash proffers to offset the cost associated with upgrading the public facilities to accommodate the new zoning.”

— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2297(A) — 5 cases

Jefferson Green Unit Owners v. Gwinn, 551 S.E.2d 339 (Va. 2001). “3 void as a matter of public policy and in violation of Code §§ 15.2-2297 and -1102. After considering the parties' memoranda and argument, the circuit court determined that Code § 15.”

Riverview Farm Assocs. Virginia Gen. P'ship v. Bd. of Supervisors, 528 S.E.2d 99 (Va. 2000). “Code § 15.2-2297 and Charles City County Ordinance § 13.”

Jefferson Green Unit Owners Ass'n v. Gwinn, 551 S.E.2d 339 (Va. 2001). “3 void as a matter of public policy and in violation of Code §§ 15.2-2297 and -1102. After considering the parties’ memoranda and argument, the circuit court determined that Code § 15.”

Hale v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Town of Blacksburg, 673 S.E.2d 170 (Va. 2009). “; see Code §§ 15.2-2297(A) and 15.2-2303(A). Code § 15.”

Heflin v. Caroline Cnty., 83 Va. Cir. 507 (Caroline Cir. Ct. 2010). “To induce the zoning changes, the applicant made off site Va. Code § 15.2-2297(A) proffers, one of which required the trucks to use a private right of way over a privately owned A-l zoned parcel in lieu of using public highways.”

— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2297(A)(v) — 2 cases

— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2297(A)(vii) — 1 case

Riverview Farm Assocs. Virginia Gen. P'ship v. Bd. of Supervisors, 528 S.E.2d 99 (Va. 2000). “Code § 15.2-2297 and Charles City County Ordinance § 13.”

— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2297(A)(viii) — 2 cases

Anne Edwards Hartley v. Bd. of Supervisors of Brunswick Cnty., Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024). “7 At oral argument, Hartley also proposed that the entire town of Ebony might be considered a statutory “feature” which must be developed in substantial accord with the comprehensive plan.”

Anne Edwards Hartley v. Bd. of Supervisors of Brunswick Cnty., Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024). “However, that case only shows that under Code § 15.2-2297(A)(viii), any proffered conditions made with a rezoning application must be consistent with the comprehensive plan.”

— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2297(AXv) — 1 case

Gwinn v. Jefferson Green Unit Owners' Ass'n, 54 Va. Cir. 79 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2000). “This Court finds the County’s arguments to be compelling and rules that § 15.”

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.