County officials work on comprehensive plan
By John Barnhart

Bedford Bulletin
Jan 18.2006

A Tuesday evening meeting between the Bedford County Board of Supervisors and the planning commission led to the conclusion that the wording of the comprehensive plan's objectives needs to be revisited.

The meeting took place at the Bedford Welcome Center last Tuesday. Its purpose was to go over the comprehensive plan's goals and objectives and arrive at a consensus.
 

The planning commission began working on the plan's goals and objectives last October. The planners divided up into three teams in November to review them. The deadline for citizen comments came on Dec. 2 and were forwarded to the planning commission on Dec. 13. The three committees presented their final drafts on Jan. 3.

A consensus was quickly reached on the plan's 12 goals. The goals provide general policies for future action and each forms the framework for more detailed objectives.

The objectives are specific statements to define directions to achieve a goal. The effort to reach consensus quickly bogged down on the wording of these statements.

Many of the objectives began with the word "prohibit" or "eliminate." Steve Stevick, who represents District 5 on the planning commission felt that objectives should be worded as positive statements, rather than negatives.

Objectives that contained words such as "provide" and "ensure" worried some of the supervisors. They were concerned that these objectives, if they became part of the comprehensive plan, could obligate the county to some expensive projects.

District 1 supervisor Dale Wheeler, noting the language of some of the transportation objectives, said that they are accomplished mostly under the Virginia Department of Transportation.

"We can't do transportation out of real estate taxation," Wheeler said. "There is no way the body I sit on can pay for it."

However, Philip Thompson, director of planning, said that the transportation objectives don't require the county to implement everything.

Wheeler was also concerned that the wording of some of the objectives under the housing goal could create spending obligations for the county.

"I've been around too many lawyers in my time, " he said.

One objective worried County Attorney Carl Boggess. Objective 4.4 reads: "Require all housing developments to be safe, sanitary and aesthetically pleasing places to live." Boggess said that planners need to be careful about using the word "require" because the county has no property maintenance code. He said that the word makes it appear that the county intends to add such a code.

District 5 Supervisor Steve Arrington was concerned that this objective gives the county government broad, sweeping powers and obligates the county to pay for what the homeowner can't afford to do.

The planning commission will take a new look at the objectives' wording. Steve Wilkerson, chairman of the planning commission, suggested that the objectives be reworded to express a desired state of affairs rather than an action to be taken.