If a property owner owes delinquent taxes that are a lien on the land, can a Virginia county treasurer override the locality's refusal to consider a rezoning or land-use application from that owner?

Plain-English summary

Stafford County Treasurer Michael Sienkowski asked whether a locality must honor a treasurer's authorization to proceed with a land-use application despite certain unpaid taxes or charges that are liens on the property. He also asked whether a locality can adopt the unpaid-tax bar without the treasurer's authority added to the state statute in 2017.

Attorney General Jay Jones answered that the treasurer's authority comes from state law and binds a local governing body even when its ordinance does not include the 2017 language. A locality that chooses to use the statutory unpaid-tax bar must also recognize the treasurer's power to waive that bar. If the treasurer exercises that power, the locality must reach the merits of the application; it cannot rely on the unpaid taxes as a reason to refuse consideration.

The waiver concerns the tax-based bar to consideration or final approval. The opinion says it does not require the locality to decide favorably on the substance of the proposed land-use change. The opinion does not establish a payment-plan policy, a good-faith test for the treasurer, or another set of conditions for granting a waiver.

What this means for you

If you are a local treasurer

The opinion says you have statutory authority to waive the unpaid-tax bar when a locality uses the relevant land-use provision. A contrary or older local ordinance does not erase that authority. The opinion does not decide how you should exercise that discretion in a particular case.

If you review land-use applications

Where the treasurer authorizes an application despite covered unpaid taxes, the opinion says the locality must consider or decide the application on its merits. It does not require a favorable decision on the requested land-use change.

If you own property with covered unpaid taxes

The opinion says the treasurer may remove the tax-based bar, but it does not grant an automatic waiver or an automatic approval of the application. The taxes themselves remain an issue separate from whether the locality must reach the application's merits.

Common questions

Q: What if the local ordinance predates the 2017 amendment?

A: The opinion says the treasurer's authority still applies. A locality cannot use the older ordinance's omission of the amendment to avoid the authority granted by state law.

Q: Can a locality use the unpaid-tax bar while omitting the treasurer waiver?

A: No. The opinion says a locality choosing to incorporate the statutory bar must follow all mandatory provisions, including the treasurer's authority to waive it.

Q: Does a treasurer's waiver require approval of the proposed land use?

A: No. The opinion says the locality must reach the merits, but the treasurer cannot require a favorable decision on the application.

Q: Does the opinion set a rule for payment plans or good-faith waiver decisions?

A: No. The reproduced opinion does not discuss payment plans, waiver policies, or a good-faith standard for the treasurer's decision.

Background and statutory framework

The Virginia statute allows a local governing body to require satisfactory evidence that specified delinquent taxes, fees, and charges that are liens on the property have been paid before initiating or giving final approval to certain land-use applications. The 2017 amendment added the clause “unless otherwise authorized by the treasurer.”

The opinion treats that addition as a substantive grant of authority to the treasurer. It says the statutory bar is permissive for the locality, but a locality that elects to use it cannot select only the parts it prefers. The treasurer's waiver authority must be included and respected.

The opinion applies the principle that local ordinances cannot conflict with state law. It concludes that a locality cannot use an ordinance to abrogate the treasurer's statutory authority. If the treasurer waives the bar, the local governing body must consider the application on its merits while retaining its authority to decide the substantive land-use question.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2026/25-016-Sienkowski-Issued.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General

Jay Jones
Attorney General

202 North 9th Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
FAX 804-786-1991
Virginia Relay Services
800-828-1120

February 19, 2026

The Honorable Michael O. Sienkowski
Stafford County Treasurer
Post Office Box 68
Stafford, Virginia 22555-0068

Dear Mr. Sienkowski:

I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.

Issues Presented

You inquire regarding the 2017 action of the General Assembly amending § 15.2-2286(B) which authorizes the treasurer to grant leave to the local governing authority to determine whether a rezoning or permit application may be initiated or final approval granted when certain delinquent taxes, fees or charges that are a lien on the land (hereafter "taxes") are owed on a subject property (the "2017 Amendment"). Your questions concerning the 2017 Amendment: 1) Whether a locality must recognize and follow the authorized decision of the treasurer to allow the initiation of or final approval of the rezoning or other stated land use change, as set out in the 2017 Amendment, even if the local ordinance does not provide for that authority, and 2) whether a locality may adopt only selected portions of a permissive statute, such as § 15.2-2286(B), or whether adoption of any portion requires adoption of the entire statute.

Response

It is my opinion that the treasurer is authorized by the 2017 Amendment to § 15.2-2286(B) to require the local governing board to initiate or grant final approval of an application for a change in land use, regardless of the language of any local ordinance not including the 2017 Amendment.

Moreover, it is my opinion that, as opposed to a permissive statute which sets out a list of optional provisions that may be included in a local ordinance, a statute such as § 15.2-2286(B) requires that a locality choosing to incorporate its provisions into a local ordinance must incorporate all of its provisions and otherwise follow all of its provisions, including the 2017 Amendment, when seeking to exercise the powers granted therein.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Section 15.2-2286(B) provides that

Prior to the initiation of an application by the owner of the subject property ... for [listed zoning actions and permits], or prior to the issuance of final approval, the authorizing body may require the applicant to produce satisfactory evidence that any delinquent real estate taxes, nuisance charges, stormwater management utility fees, and any other charges that constitute a lien on the subject property, that are owed to the locality and have been properly assessed against the subject property, have been paid, unless otherwise authorized by the treasurer.

Prior to 2017, § 15.2-2286(B) authorized the local governing body to condition the review of a rezoning or other land use change request, or the final approval of the request, upon the payment in full of certain local taxes. The local governing board is not required by this statute to interpose the unpaid taxes issue to prevent consideration or final approval but may do so.

The General Assembly enacted the 2017 Amendment to add the clause "unless otherwise authorized by the treasurer" to the text of § 15.2-2286(B). The 2017 Amendment is intended to be a substantive amendment to § 15.2-2286(B) in that it grants or adds an express right to the treasurer to override any decision of the local governing body to deny the relief sought by the applicant if the applicant is in arrears on certain unpaid taxes. The courts have held that "[a]s a general rule, there is a presumption that a substantive change in law was intended by an amendment to an existing statute."

Section 15.2-2286(B) is a grant of permissive authority to localities, but not a statute that grants a locality the right to choose needed authority from among a range of permissive powers. The statute authorizes, but does not require, the governing body to raise the issue of certain unpaid taxes as a bar to consideration or approval of certain land use changes. This statute mandates and requires the local governing body to include the authority of the treasurer to remove the bar of the unpaid taxes when adopting § 15.2-2286(B). The treasurer has authority to act pursuant to § 15.2-2286(B), regardless of any local ordinance to the contrary, and that authority is binding on the local governing body to reach the merits of the application or to grant final approval.

For more than a century, Dillon's Rule has limited the authority of local governments to legislate in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Supreme Court of Virginia has held that "municipal corporations possess and can exercise only those powers expressly granted by the General Assembly, those necessarily or fairly implied therefrom, and those that are essential and indispensable." A prior Opinion of this Office stated that "A municipal ordinance is invalid under Dillon's Rule if it exceeds the scope of authority granted by statute, or is inconsistent with a statute such that the ordinance and the statute cannot coexist." Counties, like municipal corporations, are likewise subject in the same way to the principle of Dillon's Rule. The Supreme Court of Virginia in Board of Supervisors v. Countryside Investment Company did hold that the General Assembly may confer authority on a local government to choose from a range of powers on a certain subject matter. However, the Court also held that the principle of Dillon's Rule requires the locality to include all the mandated powers in the authorized ordinance governing that subject matter and if the local government does not do so, or adds powers neither mandated nor permitted, the ordinance is void.

The treasurer advises me that Stafford County has an ordinance granting the local board of supervisors the authority contained within § 15.2-2286(B) but it was enacted prior to the 2017 Amendment and does not include the text of the 2017 Amendment.

Notwithstanding the terms or interpretation of any local ordinance, the treasurer does have the authority under the 2017 Amendment to § 15.2-2286(B) to require the locality to decide the application or grant final approval and proceed to the merits of the application regardless of any unpaid taxes, but the treasurer's authority does not extend to require the local governing board to decide favorably on the merits of the application or granting of final approval as to the land use change sought in the application. If the authority of the treasurer can be circumvented by a local government by allowing the taxes issue to be used to deny the application or final approval after that treasurer has waived the bar of the unpaid taxes, then the 2017 Amendment becomes a useless legislative enactment. Granting the treasurer authority to waive the bar of the unpaid taxes is not to be construed to allow the treasurer the right to require the local government to grant any substantive relief on the application.

Serious questions arise under Dillon's Rule when a local ordinance does not recognize the right of the treasurer established by the 2017 Amendment to § 15.2-2286(B). A prior Opinion of this Office from 1983 lends support to this with the opinion that a county ordinance that deprives a treasurer of his authority conferred by statute as to the question of choice of depository is in conflict with that statute and is therefore, void ab initio. Any local ordinance that denies a power conferred under state statute to a local official would also be contrary to § 1-248 which states, in relevant part, that "[a]ny ordinance, resolution, bylaw, rule, regulation, or order of any governing body ... shall not be inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the Commonwealth."

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion that the treasurer is authorized by the 2017 Amendment to § 15.2-2286(B) to waive the bar on unpaid taxes arising in the context of an application for a change in land use or granting of final approval of an application for a change in land use, regardless of the language of any local ordinance not including the 2017 Amendment. No locality may, by virtue of a local ordinance, abrogate the authority of the treasurer established in the 2017 Amendment. Moreover, it is my opinion that, as opposed to a permissive statute which sets out a list of optional provisions that may be included in a local ordinance, § 15.2-2286(B) has mandatory provisions. The statute requires that a locality choosing to adopt the authority for its local governing board to prohibit land use applications or final approval when certain taxes are delinquent must also adopt the authority of the treasurer under the 2017 Amendment to waive that prohibition. The local governing body cannot interpose the unpaid taxes as a bar to a decision on the merits if the treasurer exercises its 2017 Amendment authority to a particular land use change application but must rather reach the merits on the application.

With kindest regards,
Very truly yours,

Jay Jones
Attorney General