This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
Honorable Patrick A. Hope
December 5, 2025
Page 2
provides the framework by which any locality is empowered to first "set[] forth" and then restrict the
alteration or demolition of historic structures by the adoption of an ordinance. 4
Subsection (A) of搂 15.2-2306, in three subdivisions, sets out various provisions that such an
ordinance either may or must contain. In general, but among other things, Subdivision 1 authorizes
localities, by ordinance, to designate historic structures and districts and to condition development related
thereto; Subdivision 2 addresses the demolition ofa historic structure; and Subdivision 3 establishes judicial
review procedures and owners' demolition rights.
The 2024 Amendment inserted the following sentence into Subdivision 1: "The filing of the
building permit or demolition application shall stay the locality from issuing any permit to ... demolish the
historic ... structure until 30 days after the rendering of the final decision of the governing body of the
locality."5 You ask whether this amendment prohibits a locality from issuing a demolition permit if the
permit is for a structure that is under consideration for historic designation by the locality. Your inquiry
involves the meaning of the term "final decision," as used in the 2024 Amendment.
The "primary objective" in interpreting a statute is "'to ascertain and give effect to legislative
intent,' as expressed by the language used in the statute." 6 "[A] statute should be read and considered as a
whole, and the language ofa statute should be examined in its entirety to determine the intent of the General
Assembly from the words contained in the statute." 7 In interpreting a statute, words cannot be read in
isolation. 8 Rather, terms are to be read in the context of the statute as a whole. 9 Moreover, courts seek "to
adopt that sense of the words which harmonizes best with the context, and promotes in the fullest manner
the apparent policy and objects of the legislature." 10 Accordingly, the 2024 Amendment must be read "not
in a vacuum, but with reference to the statutory context, 'structure, history, and purpose. "' 11 Because the
meaning of the term "final decision" in the 2024 Amendment is informed by the structure of搂 15.2-2306
and the use of the term "final decision" elsewhere in 搂 15.2-2306, 12 a closer examination of Subsection (A)
of搂 15.2-2306 is warranted.
4
VA. CODE ANN.搂 15.2-2306 (Supp. 2025). Section 15.2-2306 alternatively uses the terminology "setting forth"
and "designated" to refer to structures that a locality identifies in an ordinance as "having an important historic ...
interest." Compare搂 15.2-2306(A)(l) ("Any locality may adopt an ordinance setting forth ... structures ... having
an important historic ... interest.") with 搂 15 .2-2306(E) ('" [H]istoric structure' means a structure designated as having
an important historic ... interest or designated as a contributing structure by an ordinance passed pursuant to subsection
A."). Thus, for purposes of搂 15.2-2306, a structure that is "set[] forth" in an ordinance as a historic structure is
synonymous with a structure that is "designated" as such. See MERRIAM WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY p. 313
(10th ed. 1997) (defining "designate" as "to indicate and set apart for a specific purpose, office, or duty").
5
2024 Va. Acts ch. 752.
6
Berry v. Bd. of Supervisors, 302 Va. 114, 127 (2023) (quoting Cuccinelli v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va.,
283 Va. 420,425 (2012)).
7
Dep't of Med. Assistance Servs. v. Beverly Healthcare of Fredericksburg, 268 Va. 278, 285 (2004).
8
Young v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 528, 533 (2007).
9
Id.
10 Thornton v. Commonwealth, 78 Va. App. 321,330 (2023) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Colbert
v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 390, 394 (2006)).
11 Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169, 179 (2014) (quoting Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48, 76 (2013)).
12
Va. Electric & Power Co. v. Bd. Of Cnty. Supvrs., 226 Va. 382, 388 (1983) ("[I]t is our duty to interpret the
several parts of a statute as a consistent and harmonious whole so as to effectuate the legislative goal.").Jump to an indexed page (5 of 5)