Can a Virginia county that doesn't use a county-executive or county-manager form of government make homeowners retrofit existing outdoor lights to protect the night sky?

Plain-English summary

Rappahannock County is home to a county park designated as an International Dark Sky Park. The county wanted to know whether it could require homeowners to retrofit their outdoor light fixtures to reduce light pollution. The county attorney noted Rappahannock operates under the general powers reserved to counties (it has neither a county-executive nor a county-manager form of government).

Attorney General Jay Jones gave a split answer. On retrofits of existing residential lighting, the answer is no: under Dillon's Rule, the General Assembly has expressly granted lighting-regulation authority only to municipal corporations (§ 15.2-1117), to counties under the county-executive form (§ 15.2-504.1), and to counties under the county-manager form (§ 15.2-742). A separate § 15.2-920 lets any locality regulate lighting within a half-mile of an observatory or planetarium, but that does not cover Rappahannock's general light-pollution concern. Because the General Assembly is presumed to mean what it says, the absence of a similar grant to general-powers counties means Rappahannock lacks the authority. The general police power in § 15.2-1201 does not fill the gap, because § 15.2-204 limits counties to powers "specifically conferred."

On future residential development, the answer is yes, with appropriate care. Section 15.2-2283 lists twelve permissible purposes of zoning ordinances, and item (vi) protects against "obstruction of light and air." Because light pollution obstructs the night sky for neighbors, Rappahannock can amend its zoning ordinance to regulate outdoor lighting in new development, provided the ordinance is supported by enough evidence to make its reasonableness "fairly debatable" under Harrell and Carper.

The opinion does not pass on whether Rappahannock's existing zoning ordinance, as written, is sufficient. That review is beyond the scope of an AG opinion.

What this means for you

If you are a Rappahannock County supervisor or planning commission member

You cannot adopt a stand-alone retrofit ordinance for existing residential outdoor lighting under your general police power. The path that the opinion endorses is to amend your zoning ordinance to address outdoor lighting in new residential development, citing § 15.2-2283(vi)'s "obstruction of light and air" purpose. Build the legislative record at adoption: data on the dark-sky park designation, evidence that proposed lighting requirements actually reduce night-sky obstruction, and reasonableness analysis. The opinion notes the ordinance must be at least "fairly debatable" on reasonableness, so a thin record could be challenged.

If you live in Rappahannock County (or are buying property there)

Existing exterior lighting on your home is not subject to a retrofit requirement under current Virginia law. If you build new (or substantially redevelop), expect the county to be able to require dark-sky-friendly outdoor lighting through its zoning ordinance, but only if the county has actually adopted such a provision. Check the current zoning ordinance before assuming any rule applies.

If you are a dark-sky advocate or community group

The opinion gives you two practical paths. First, lobby for an amendment to § 15.2-204 or to the chapter giving general-powers counties express authority to regulate residential exterior lighting; the General Assembly could grant it. Second, work with planning staff in counties under the county-executive (§ 15.2-504.1) or county-manager (§ 15.2-742) forms, which already have the express grant. Third, in any locality, push zoning amendments under § 15.2-2283(vi) for new development, focused on builds inside or near dark-sky-sensitive areas.

If you are a land-use attorney

The opinion's value is mostly defensive. If a Virginia county that lacks the county-executive or county-manager form has tried (or threatens to try) to require retrofits of existing residential lighting, this opinion is direct authority to challenge the ordinance under Dillon's Rule. Combine with Marble Techs. and Reed's Landing on the doubt-resolved-against-locality canon.

For prospective ordinances, plan-and-record building matters: make sure the legislative file at adoption shows the obstruction-of-light-and-air purpose, contains specific findings, and references the dark-sky park or observatory facts that justify the regulation. The opinion expressly notes that a court will uphold the zoning power if the issue is "fairly debatable," so a strong adoption record materially reduces litigation risk.

If you serve on a county board outside Rappahannock

Same analysis applies in any general-powers county. If your county operates under one of the optional forms (county-executive, county-manager), you have broader authority to regulate exterior illumination. Otherwise, plan for a zoning-based solution and verify whether your zoning ordinance already references "obstruction of light and air" as an enumerated purpose.

Common questions

Q: Why does Rappahannock specifically lack the authority?
A: Because Rappahannock operates under the general powers reserved to counties under § 15.2-1200, not under the county-executive form (which would activate § 15.2-504.1) or county-manager form (which would activate § 15.2-742). Those two specific grants of lighting-regulation authority are forms-specific. Dillon's Rule means a county only has the powers expressly granted, and Rappahannock does not have this one.

Q: What is the half-mile-around-observatories rule?
A: Section 15.2-920 lets any Virginia locality regulate outdoor lighting within a half-mile of planetariums, astronomical observatories, and meteorological laboratories. This is its own narrow grant. It does not cover the broader light-pollution concern around a dark-sky park.

Q: Can the county use its general police power instead?
A: No, per the opinion. Even though § 15.2-1201 broadly states that counties have police-power authority similar to municipalities, § 15.2-204 limits that grant to powers "specifically conferred" on the county. Without a specific grant of lighting-regulation authority for general-powers counties, Dillon's Rule cuts the other way.

Q: How does the zoning route work?
A: Section 15.2-2283 lists twelve permissible purposes for zoning ordinances. Item (vi) authorizes localities to protect against "obstruction of light and air." The AG reasons that artificial light pollution obstructs the natural light from the night sky for neighboring landowners, so it falls within the zoning power. To use this route, Rappahannock would need to amend its zoning ordinance with a provision that explicitly addresses outdoor lighting in new development and that is supported by a legislative record sufficient to be "fairly debatable" on reasonableness.

Q: Will the AG opinion say whether the county's current zoning ordinance is good enough?
A: No. The opinion expressly declines to evaluate the existing ordinance, noting that interpreting the local ordinance is outside the scope of an AG opinion (citing 1977-78 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 17).

Q: What is "fairly debatable" review?
A: It is the deferential standard Virginia courts apply to zoning regulations. If a regulation is supported by enough evidence that reasonable people could disagree about its reasonableness, the court upholds it. Cited cases: City Council of Virginia Beach v. Harrell and Bd. of Supvrs v. Rowe.

Q: Could a homeowner challenge a future lighting ordinance as a taking?
A: The opinion does not address a takings analysis directly. It focuses on the antecedent question of authority. Even with authority, an ordinance that "deprive[s] a person of the legitimate use of his property" arbitrarily could be challenged separately under Rowe.

Background and statutory framework

Virginia local-government authority runs on Dillon's Rule (named after Iowa judge John F. Dillon's 19th-century treatise). Local governments have only the powers (1) expressly granted by the General Assembly, (2) necessarily or fairly implied from express grants, and (3) essential and indispensable to the locality's declared purposes. Where a power "cannot be found," the inquiry is at an end. Reasonable doubts are resolved against the local governing body.

That framework structures Virginia's lighting-regulation statutes. The General Assembly granted lighting-regulation authority through three different express provisions:

• § 15.2-1117: Municipal corporations may regulate "the light, ventilation, sanitation and use and occupancy of buildings."
• § 15.2-504.1: Counties operating under the county-executive form (and with population under 100,000) may by ordinance regulate exterior illumination of buildings and property.
• § 15.2-742: Counties operating under the county-manager form may do the same.
• § 15.2-920: Any locality may regulate outdoor lighting within a half-mile of planetariums, observatories, or meteorological labs.

Rappahannock fits none of these categories. It operates under the general powers reserved to counties under § 15.2-1200 (not the county-executive or county-manager forms). It is not a municipal corporation. The dark-sky park is a county park, not an observatory or planetarium.

The general police power under § 15.2-1201 might seem to fill the gap; it grants counties powers "concurrent" with those given to cities and towns. But § 15.2-204 cabins that grant: counties have Article 1 powers "only when such powers are specifically conferred upon the county." So the police power is broad in principle but cannot stretch to a regulatory subject the General Assembly did not specifically commit to general-powers counties.

The zoning enabling statute is the workaround. Section 15.2-2280 broadly authorizes localities to enact zoning ordinances, and § 15.2-2283 lists twelve permissible purposes. Item (vi) is "to protect against . . . obstruction of light and air." The AG reads light pollution as a form of light obstruction (it obstructs the natural light from the night sky), so a zoning ordinance addressing outdoor lighting in future development falls within the enumerated purpose. Manors LLC v. Bd. of Supvrs (Va. App. 2023) confirms the enabling statute's structure of authorizing zoning ordinances tied to specific listed purposes.

The opinion stops short of evaluating the existing Rappahannock zoning ordinance, leaving that fact-bound question to local counsel and the courts.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-204 (Counties' Article 1 powers limited)
- Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1117 (Municipal lighting regulation)
- Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-504.1 (County executive form lighting power)
- Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-742 (County manager form lighting power)
- Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-920 (Lighting around observatories)
- Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2283 (Purposes of zoning ordinances)

Cases:
- Dumfries-Triangle Rescue Squad, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Supvrs., 299 Va. 226 (2020). Dillon's Rule restated
- Marble Techs., Inc. v. City of Hampton, 279 Va. 409 (2010) - doubts resolved against locality
- City Council of Virginia Beach v. Harrell, 236 Va. 99 (1988) - fairly debatable standard for zoning
- Manors LLC v. Bd. of Supvrs, 76 Va. App. 737 (2023) - zoning enabling statute structure

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2026/25-021-Goff-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

Arthur L. Goff, Esquire
County Attorney, County of Rappahannock
239 Gay Street
Washington, Virginia 22747-0519

Dear Mr. Goff:

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

Issue Presented

You inquire whether the County of Rappahannock may regulate existing outdoor residential light fixtures to mitigate the effects of light pollution.

Background

Rappahannock County shares a growing concern among local governments about the mitigation of the light pollution that comes with increased development and hinders the viewing of the starry sky at night. There is also a county park within the boundaries of the county that has a special designation as a park favorable for night sky viewing. You advise that Rappahannock County has the general powers reserved to counties and cities under § 15.1-1200 but has neither a County Executive form of government nor a County Manager form of government.

Response

It is my opinion that Rappahannock County does not have authority under existing law to mitigate light pollution by regulating existing outdoor residential light fixtures but does possess authority to regulate outdoor residential light fixtures in future land development through an appropriately drafted amendment to its zoning ordinance.

Applicable Law and Discussion

In Virginia, the powers of local governments are governed by Dillon's Rule. Local governing bodies "have only those powers that are (1) expressly granted by the General Assembly, (2) necessarily or fairly implied from those express powers, and (3) essential to the declared objects and purposes of the municipality." Local ordinances must be consistent with the laws of the Commonwealth, and when "there is a reasonable doubt whether legislative power exists, the doubt must be resolved against the local governing body."

There is some statutory authority for local governments to regulate outdoor lighting; none of those statutes apply to Rappahannock County by their express terms. The statutory power granted in § 15.2-1117, allowing the "light" from buildings to be regulated is expressly limited to municipal corporations. Counties with the County Executive form of government and the County Manager form of government do have specific grants of authority to regulate exterior lighting levels for buildings and property. There is also a specific grant of power to all counties, cities or towns to "regulate outdoor lighting within an area one-half mile around planetariums, astronomical observatories, and meteorological laboratories." The General Assembly is presumed to know the specific words used when it enacts a statute, and means those words to exclude other words not stated. Accordingly, there is no express grant of authority to Rappahannock County to regulate existing residential lighting through either the specific grants to certain types of local county government or as part of a general grant to power to counties.

Rappahannock County does possess a general police power authority, derived from statute, to adopt "such measures as it deems expedient to secure and promote the health, safety and general welfare of its inhabitants which are not inconsistent with the general law of the Commonwealth." While the language of § 15.2-1201 seems to grant concurrent powers on counties as are enacted for "the councils of cities and towns by virtue of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the Acts of the General Assembly passed in pursuance thereof," that broad power stated in § 15.2-1201 is limited by § 15.2-204 to powers that are "specifically conferred upon the county."

Accordingly, I suggest that there would be a reasonable doubt that Rappahannock County may regulate existing light fixtures through the general police power of counties. Thus there appears to be no existing authority allowing such an ordinance.

The zoning ordinance of a locality is a potential grant of power for future development. The General Assembly has, through statutory authority, granted localities authority to regulate land use through properly enacted local zoning ordinances. The authority of local governments to enact and enforce local zoning ordinances is broad but not unlimited. Section 15.2-2283 directs that "[z]oning ordinances shall be for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety or general welfare of the public" and lists twelve purposes that may be considered by municipalities when enacting zoning ordinances. The most efficacious possibility among the twelve enumerated and authorized statutory purposes is "obstruction of light and air." Light pollution can obstruct the view of the natural light from the sky for another landowner or resident, hence that obstruction of light from the night sky through the misuse of man-made light is within the right of a locality to regulate through a validly enacted local zoning ordinance that contains the authority to regulate the "obstruction of light and air." I would also state as an alternative ground for this opinion that if the zoning ordinance amendment governing outdoor lighting in future residential development is supported by enough evidence of reasonableness to make the issue fairly debatable, the zoning power will be upheld. As to the efficacy of the present Rappahannock County Zoning Ordinance to regulate obstruction of light and air, or that the ordinance as written contains enough evidence in the ordinance or its legislative history to render the adoption of the regulation reasonable and fairly debatable, that review is beyond the scope of an Opinion of the Attorney General of Virginia.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion that, absent statutory authority, Rappahannock County does not have power to mitigate light pollution through either the enactment of an ordinance requiring existing residential outdoor light fixtures to be retrofitted, or to require residential buildings or structures to modify their lighting henceforth. Rappahannock County does have authority to reenact its zoning ordinance, subject to the caveats discussed above, in such a way to mitigate light pollution through regulation of the residential outdoor light fixtures required for future residential land development.

With kindest regards, I am,
Very truly yours,

Jay Jones
Attorney General