Bedford County commission forwards recommended zoning changes

The proposed overhaul of Bedford County’s zoning ordinance that underwent several years of review and spawned a lawsuit took a step toward culmination Monday.

The county planning commission recommended actions for the board of supervisors to consider regarding the proposed amendments, a few days shy of a deadline to do so.

The recommendations will now go before the board, which initiated the changes in September to give the ordinance its most significant makeover since the regulations were adopted in 1998.

“It’s been a long haul,” said Fred Fralick, the Forest District commissioner, following Monday’s meeting. “I think we’ve done a really good job…it’s a good feeling to say we’ve done our professional duty.” 

The commission began discussing the zoning proposals in 2008 — a year after the county passed a new comprehensive plan to guide growth and development.

Last year, the board became deeply entrenched with reviewing the changes through its own committees and initiated proposals some commissioners contended ignored the comprehensive plan.

A public hearing in November drew hundreds of residents voicing strong opposition. A month later, Steve Stevick, who served seven years on the commission’s District 5 seat, resigned in protest of how he felt the board was proceeding with the changes.

A group of residents called Bedford Above Board formed in late 2011 and, last month, filed a lawsuit against the board claiming it did not properly notify county residents of the proposals in accordance with state law. Carl Boggess, the county attorney, has said the board acted properly in meeting necessary legal notices and called the litigation “premature” since adoption has not yet happened.

The commission recommended the board deny various parts of the proposals: some include combining C-1 and C-2 office districts and renaming it as a General Commercial district, adding a new Commercial-Residential district, rescinding a corridor overlay district along roadways, reducing minimum lot size requirements in agricultural areas and allowing unlimited temporary signs for business uses.

Commissioners also recommended some modified proposals, such as lifting a restriction on selling firearms within home occupations. The recommended change would prohibit firearm sales in home businesses in urban and residential areas and lift the current ban in agricultural and rural areas.

Some proposals the commission recommended adopting as is. Two examples are allowing residents to seek text amendments to the ordinance in pursuing new uses and modifying the “family” definition to reduce the number of unrelated people in a residence from eight to four.

Two themes commissioners said they adhered to were: staying true to the intent of zoning districts and keeping development where the county could support it and limit it where it could not.

“We kept in mind the comprehensive plan as we went through this,” Fralick said.

Chairman Derrick Noell said the commission handled the proposals on a “case-by-case basis” and praised the planning department for its work.

“Staff did a great job; we analyzed it as it was presented to us,” Noell said. “We took it line-by-line and item-by-item. I think it’s going to work out just fine.”

Fralick said the commission acted professionally after years of work that often caused clashing viewpoints between the two bodies. He added he hopes the supervisors further engage in dialogue with the commission before a final decision is made.

The board in early December nixed a previous proposal to combine the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts after many spoke out against it during the hearing. Fralick said he feels the recommendations are considerate of property rights and address concerns the public raised before the two bodies. 

“It’s a real balancing act,” Fralick said. “While we (the commission and the board) may be in disagreement, it doesn’t mean we are in conflict.”  

Newly appointed commissioners Jerry Craig, Lewis Huff and Tommy Scott served their first meeting Monday and did not engage in previous discussions on zoning changes. Scott abstained from voting; the vote was unanimous and one member was absent.