January 8, 2003
Grassroots
Bedford County’s Zoning Objectives
Bedford County adopted a zoning ordinance in 1998 and as noted in last week’s column, it is an important tool for the county in planning and controlling development. According to the Virginia Statue on Zoning Ordinances, “Zoning ordinances shall be for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety or general welfare of the public.” The objectives of Bedford County’s Zoning Ordinance are those prescribed by the Code of Virginia for all localities. They are to:
1. Provide for adequate light, air, access, safety from fire, flood and other dangers;
2. Reduce or prevent congestion in streets;
3. Facilitate creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community;
4. Facilitate the provision of adequate police, fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewer, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements;
5. Protect against destruction of, or encroachment upon historic buildings or areas;
6. Protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light or air, hazards and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health or property from fire, flood, panic or other hazards;
7. Encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base;
8. Provide for the preservation of agricultural and forested lands;
9. Protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports; and
10. Protect surface and groundwater resources.
These objectives are set by the Code of Virginia and all localities are required to identify and address them in their local zoning ordinances. In some localities, a Comprehensive Plan is written prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance. Thus, the zoning ordinance implements the goals, objectives and strategies for land use that are set by localities themselves in their Comprehensive Plan. In other localities, such as Bedford County, a zoning ordinance is adopted without the locality having updated its Comprehensive Plan.
There are different ways that localities meet each of the Commonwealth’s zoning ordinance objectives in their local ordinances. For example, in meeting Objective 8 above (“provide for the preservation of agricultural and forested lands) some localities with a vital agricultural industry have Comprehensive Plans that include specific goals, objectives and strategies related to farmland preservation. Their zoning ordinances might, therefore, severely restricts development in agricultural areas or be written to allow flexible development. For example, one of the major impacts of standard zoning has been the creation of sprawling developments laid out with little regard for natural, agricultural, scenic, and history resources. This type of development has little variety in design and density and little open space that is accessible to nearby property owners.
Subdivision rules that allow the grouping of lots on a small portion of a tract, away from the most special resources on that tract, can be an effective and flexible way to allow limited amounts of development in rural areas. For example, suppose a local agricultural zoning ordinance allows fifty 2-acre residential lots on a 100-acre tract. With clustering, the developer would still be able to build fifty homes, but could do so on smaller lots that were grouped together or clustered. The remaining land could be dedicated to agriculture through a lease with a nearby farmer, or be used as a park or recreational open space for homeowners. Such development might protect more the environment and provide a more attractive setting than would a standard subdivision.
In examining the zoning objectives set by the Commonwealth, there are both objective and subjective goals. Objective goals relate to safety (fire, police, disaster evacuation, flood protection, etc.) and livability (transportation, education, recreation, employment, etc.). Goals 1, 2, 4, 9 and 10 above specifically relate to these concerns. Other goals are more subjective. For example, facilitating the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community (Goal 3) or protecting against overcrowding of land or undue density of population in relation to existing or available facilities (Goal 6) are goals in this category.
People may differ on what constitutes “overcrowding of land” or “undue density of population,” or they may have different ideas of what makes a community “convenient, attractive and harmonious.” There are many ways a zoning ordinance can be written to address these objectives. When the ordinance follows a comprehensive planning process, it is written to address the specific goals for land use localities set for themselves in their Comprehensive Plans. Sometimes a zoning ordinance is completely rewritten after a Comprehensive Plan is revised in order to better implement a locality’s land use goals and objectives. While zoning predates planning in many rural communities -- as is the case in Bedford County -- it is most effective and most defensible if it implements a written plan based on a resources inventory and other up-to-date information about the community.
Some critics of Bedford’s zoning ordinance argue that the level of subdivision it currently allows in agricultural zones is such that the objective to preserve agricultural and forested lands cannot be met. Zoning measures to protect agriculture are most effective and fair when they are supplemented by agricultural conservation programs, such as Purchase of Development Rights Programs (PDRs), which allow farmers to liquidate the equity in their property, while ensuring its continued use as resource land. At the present time, Bedford County is not planning for such programs.
Because Bedford’s agricultural industry is central to its economic base – and farming subsidizes development because farmers pay more in taxes than they receive in services – the issue of “preservation” is a central issue for Bedford County. It is, in effect, an economic issue because failure to protect agricultural land results in residential growth in agricultural areas with an ever-escalating tax burden for all residents who must pay for the community services these new areas need. The price tag for developments in agricultural areas of the county will be high.
Other critics of Bedford County’s agricultural zoning feel that it is too restrictive and argue that the county is “telling them what they can do with their land.” Many of these may be counting on the speculative value of their property increasing as the county grows. They believe that the less restrictive the zoning, the greater the financial return on development because denser development would be possible. In fact, less restrictive zoning could have the effect of holding land prices down, rather than assuring they rise. What less restrictive zoning would assure, at any rate, is the loss of the rural character of the region. Compared to other states, such as Oregon, which restricts development in agricultural areas to one dwelling unit per 80 acres, Bedford County’s agricultural zoning is fairly standard.
While zoning can be an effective means of regulating land development in rural areas, it is not the only technique, nor always the best technique. Used alone it is usually unsuccessful in protecting rural character. In Carroll County, Maryland, for example, where protecting farmland has been a high priority since 1978 when the county commissioners amended the county’s zoning ordinance, farmland preservation is carried out through three interconnected programs: agricultural zoning, voluntary creation of agricultural districts, and purchase of development rights.
The new Comprehensive Plan for Bedford County should include goals that specifically relate to support for Bedford’s agricultural industry so that farmers have a broad range of options to realize the speculative value of their land. One option – the only one available now – is to develop the land to the extent allowed by the current zoning ordinance. There are, however, other options, such as purchase of development rights programs, which have supported the agricultural industry in other Virginia localities. Stay tuned to this column to learn more about these options.
Although Bedford County is still rural in many places, its current zoning ordinance is such that the county could accommodate over 1.3 million people if all zones were developed to the maximum build-out permitted. Development follows water and sewer lines. If water lines are extended county-wide -- a vision for the future articulated by County Administrator William Rolfe at a Board of Supervisors meeting on September 30, 2002 -- Bedford County will be a much more urbanized county in the future. The question citizens need to ask themselves is whether or not this is the future they want.
