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

Virginia law lets a locality (county, city, or town) refuse to even consider a rezoning, special use permit, or similar land-use application from an owner who is behind on local taxes that are a lien on the property. That power is in Va. Code § 15.2-2286(B). In 2017, the General Assembly added a single critical phrase to that statute: "unless otherwise authorized by the treasurer."

Stafford County's treasurer, Michael Sienkowski, asked the AG two questions:

1. Does the locality have to honor the treasurer's waiver, even if the local ordinance was adopted before 2017 and does not include that phrase?

Yes. Attorney General Jay Jones concluded the treasurer's authority comes from the state statute, not the local ordinance. Once the treasurer waives the unpaid-tax bar, the local governing body must reach the merits of the application.

2. Can a locality adopt some parts of § 15.2-2286(B) (the unpaid-tax bar power) but not other parts (the treasurer's waiver power)?

No. Because § 15.2-2286(B) is not the kind of statute that offers a menu of optional provisions, a locality choosing to adopt the unpaid-tax bar must adopt the treasurer's waiver power along with it. Attempting to adopt only the locality-favorable parts violates Dillon's Rule.

Important limit: the treasurer's waiver power lets the application be considered on the merits. It does not require the local governing body to grant the application.

What this means for you

If you are a Virginia county or city treasurer

You have binding statewide authority under § 15.2-2286(B) to waive the delinquent-tax bar in zoning and land-use cases, even if your locality's ordinance does not mention this authority. If the local governing body refuses to act on an application after you have waived the bar, the AG's view is that this would render the 2017 amendment "useless" and would conflict with state law under Va. Code § 1-248.

Practical implications:
- Develop a written policy for when you will and will not exercise the waiver. The opinion notes (footnote 17) that "the duty of the treasurer to effectively collect all unpaid taxes" must be balanced against the discretion to waive. Use the discretion in good faith.
- Document the waiver in writing so the planning office and the local governing body have a clear paper trail.
- Coordinate with the local attorney's office before formally exercising the waiver, especially the first time.

If you are the planning director, zoning administrator, or county attorney

If a treasurer issues a § 15.2-2286(B) waiver, the AG's view is that you cannot interpose the unpaid taxes as a basis to refuse to process or decide the application. You must put the application before the relevant board (planning commission, board of supervisors, BZA, etc.) and let it be decided on the merits.

You may want to revisit your local ordinance:
- If it currently incorporates § 15.2-2286(B) but predates 2017, the AG's view is that the treasurer's authority applies anyway. But updating the ordinance text to match current state law avoids confusion.
- If the local governing body wants to drop the unpaid-tax bar entirely (for example, to avoid having to honor treasurer waivers), it can do so by repealing the local ordinance provision. The locality is not required to use § 15.2-2286(B) at all.

If you are a property owner with delinquent taxes facing a zoning or land-use decision

You are not entitled to the treasurer's waiver. The treasurer has discretion to grant or deny it. Your taxes still have to be paid; the waiver only removes the procedural bar to having your application heard.

Steps to consider:
- Contact your county or city treasurer directly to request a waiver. Be ready to explain why you believe the application should be heard on the merits despite the unpaid balance, and to discuss a payment plan.
- Even if the treasurer grants a waiver, the local governing body can still deny your application on the merits.
- If you can pay the delinquent amount in full before the application is considered, the unpaid-tax bar does not apply and no waiver is needed.

If you are a real estate developer or counsel for one

Map out the unpaid-tax exposure of any subject property before filing a rezoning or special use permit application. If there are delinquent local taxes (real estate tax, nuisance charges, stormwater fees, or other liens), confirm whether the locality has adopted § 15.2-2286(B) and whether the treasurer is willing to waive the bar.

If the locality has adopted the statute but its ordinance predates 2017 and does not mention treasurer waiver, this opinion is strong support for the position that the treasurer's waiver still binds the locality.

If you are a Virginia legislator

The opinion identifies a "loose end" worth noting. The 2017 General Assembly added the treasurer-waiver clause to a statute that also authorizes localities to bar applications. The opinion holds that locality adoption of one means adoption of both, but the statute itself does not say so explicitly. If clarification is desired, codifying the all-or-nothing rule in the statute would foreclose disputes.

Common questions

Q: What kinds of taxes can be a bar under § 15.2-2286(B)?
A: The statute references "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."

Q: Does the bar apply to any application, or just rezoning?
A: It applies to applications listed in § 15.2-2286(B), which include zoning amendments, special use permits, and other listed land-use actions, as well as the issuance of "final approval" on those applications.

Q: Can a treasurer refuse to waive if the property owner has a payment plan in good standing?
A: The statute gives the treasurer discretion. A treasurer can develop policies about when waivers are appropriate (for example, routine waiver if the owner is current on a payment plan, or refusal if there is a long history of nonpayment). Footnote 17 of the opinion stresses that this discretion must be exercised in good faith and balanced against the treasurer's collection duties.

Q: What if the local ordinance never adopted § 15.2-2286(B) at all?
A: Then the unpaid-tax bar does not apply in that locality, and the question of treasurer waiver does not arise. The statute is a permissive grant of authority. Localities are free to decline it entirely.

Q: Does the treasurer's waiver mean the application has to be approved?
A: No. The opinion is explicit on this point: "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." The waiver removes the procedural bar; it does not direct the substantive outcome.

Q: Does this opinion apply to towns, not just counties?
A: Section 15.2-2286(B) applies to "the authorizing body" of a locality, which includes counties, cities, and towns. The same all-or-nothing rule on adopting the statute applies. The Stafford County context is incidental.

Q: What is Dillon's Rule and why does it matter here?
A: Virginia's Dillon's Rule, traced to City of Winchester v. Redmond, 93 Va. 711 (1896), holds that local governments have only those powers expressly granted by the General Assembly, fairly implied from those grants, or essential and indispensable. The opinion argues that picking and choosing only locality-favorable parts of a statute exceeds the grant and therefore violates Dillon's Rule.

Background and statutory framework

Section 15.2-2286(B) is a permissive grant of power to a local governing body. The statute does not require the locality to interpose unpaid taxes as a bar to consideration of an application, but it lets the locality do so. To use the power, the locality must enact an ordinance incorporating the statute.

Before the 2017 amendment, the statute let the local governing body block the application solely based on unpaid taxes. The 2017 General Assembly amended § 15.2-2286(B) by adding the words "unless otherwise authorized by the treasurer." This put a new player in the process: a locally-elected treasurer, with statutorily-granted discretion to waive the unpaid-tax bar.

The legal principle the opinion relies on is straightforward. Substantive amendments to statutes are presumed to change the law (Dale v. City of Newport News, 243 Va. 48 (1992); Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 300 Va. 153 (2021)). Courts also disfavor reading any part of a statute as "useless, repetitious, or absurd" (Jones v. Conwell, 227 Va. 176 (1984)). If a locality could ignore the treasurer's waiver by leaving the 2017 language out of its local ordinance, the amendment would have no effect.

Dillon's Rule is the second pillar. When the General Assembly grants authority to a locality, the locality cannot exercise less than what the statute requires. Picking selectively from a statute changes its meaning beyond what the legislature authorized. The opinion analogizes to Bd. of Supervisors v. Countryside Investment Co., 258 Va. 497 (1999), where a local subdivision ordinance was void because it included requirements the statute did not authorize. The same logic, the opinion argues, voids any local ordinance that adopts § 15.2-2286(B) but excludes the treasurer-waiver provision.

The opinion declines to interpret the Stafford County ordinance directly, citing the long-standing rule that the AG does not interpret local ordinances (footnote 13). The opinion sets out the legal framework; whether Stafford County's specific ordinance complies is a question for local counsel and, if disputed, for the courts.

Citations and references

Virginia statutes:
- Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-505 (Official advisory opinions)
- Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2286 (Permitted provisions in zoning ordinances)
- Va. Code Ann. § 1-248 (Supremacy of Constitution and laws)
- Va. Code Ann. § 58.1-3127 (Treasurer to receive and pay over taxes)
- Va. Code Ann. § 58.1-3910 (Treasurer to collect taxes)

Session law:
- 2017 Va. Acts ch. 398

Cases:
- Bd. of Supervisors v. Countryside Investment Co., 258 Va. 497 (1999)
- Dale v. City of Newport News, 243 Va. 48 (1992)
- City of Richmond v. Confrere Club of Richmond, Inc., 239 Va. 77 (1990)
- Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Bd. of Supervisors, 276 Va. 550 (2008)
- Jones v. Conwell, 227 Va. 176 (1984)

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