Bedford County commissioners reject zoning amendment on RVs, ready-removables and mini-structures in 10-8 vote

The Bedford County Board of Commissioners voted 10-8 on a motion to reject Resolution 25-15, a proposed amendment to the Bedford County zoning resolution (version 11.32) that would have added or clarified definitions and rules for recreational vehicles (RVs), mini-storage/mini-barn structures, and “ready removable” structures and revised temporary-use and temporary-medical permit language.

The measure had been recommended favorably by the Bedford County Regional Planning Commission in January 2025 and was the subject of a public hearing before the commissioners. Supporters of the amendment argued it would protect neighbors and public health; opponents said it risked overreach into property rights or needed clearer language and enforcement plans.

Why it matters: the proposed changes would have altered how certain small, movable or temporary dwelling units are treated by county code — including whether they could be used as permanent residences and what sanitation and building standards would apply. Commissioners, county staff and several members of the public framed the dispute around two core issues: protecting public health and septic systems, and preserving private property rights.

Public comments included a range of views. Paul Engel of Unionville warned of constitutional concerns, saying, “The Fourteenth Amendment ... prohibits states, and by extension, their subdivisions, from depriving anyone of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Nancy Church and other residents said the measure could displace low- and middle-income residents living in campers and RVs; Church said she spent hours door-knocking and that many neighbors “were not happy at all” and worried about losing informal housing for residents who cannot afford other options. Kim Thomas of Normandy spoke in favor of the resolution, saying homeowners must follow rules and that RVs used as permanent residences visible from roadways are “eyesores” and should be restricted.

Several commissioners described competing priorities during floor debate. Commissioner Tony Smith and Commissioner Vick emphasized enforcement and public-cost arguments: Smith questioned who would pay for schools, fire and police services if more households used informal RV dwellings, listing per-pupil and public-cost figures as a rationale for regulation. Commissioner Vick and others cited state law and building-code limitations that, they said, restrict use of ready-removable structures and certain RV configurations as permanent residences. Commissioner Epperson and other members urged that any rules focus on septic/sewer connections and other public-health protections rather than sweeping bans.

Chris White, the county planning director, told commissioners the proposed resolution was intended to bring the county zoning code into alignment with how people currently use property and to create a framework that would allow staff to work with residents rather than immediately pursue punitive enforcement. “We create these rules so people can do things only with some limitations and some boundaries,” White said, adding that the code-change package was paired with other updates and that enforcement options still exist through codes and the board of zoning appeals.

During the public discussion commissioners described specific factual concerns cited to the county. Commissioner Vick said county staff had identified northwest properties where multiple RVs used as dwellings were sharing or overloading septic systems, including “about a 50 acre property that has 7 RVs on there right now” and another property with four RVs where waste was allegedly being dumped on the ground; he argued that those conditions can damage groundwater and devalue neighboring property.

The vote: the motion on the floor had been to reject the draft ordinance (a motion “against” adoption). By roll-call the following commissioners voted yes (to reject): Commissioner Thompson; Commissioner Adam Thomas; Commissioner Davis; Commissioner Neely; Commissioner Maddox; Commissioner Fair (listed as “Commissioner ******” during roll call but recorded as voting yes); Commissioner Epperson; Commissioner Boyette; Commissioner Anderson; and Commissioner Maddox (vote list totaled 10 yes). Eight commissioners voted no (which, under the way the motion was called, corresponded to voting to adopt). The chair announced the tally as “10 ayes, 8 no’s,” and the resolution failed.

What happens next: several commissioners urged delaying action and sending the draft back to planning for revisions that would focus enforcement on public-health risks (septic, sewage disposal) and avoid perceived overreach into property rights. Commissioner comments on the record included repeated calls for a focused rewrite and for a workshop or study session to refine definitions and enforcement authority. Director White said he would work with planning and, if the commission asked, bring revised language back to the planning commission or to the commissioners for further consideration.

Background and authorities referenced during the hearing included the “Bedford County zoning resolution, version 11.32” (articles and sections cited in the proposed amendment) and Tennessee statutes cited on the record addressing ready-removable structures and safety standards: TCA 68-1-26-311 and the related definitions section (transcript citation: “TCA 68 1 26 3 11” and “TCA 68 1 26 3 03”). Commissioners and staff also referenced the inability of the state fire marshal to issue standard certificates for electrical or plumbing for many ready-removable structures.

Ending: with the 10-8 vote to reject Resolution 25-15, the county left in place existing zoning and codes enforcement practices. Several commissioners and staff signaled willingness to continue work on a narrower package of rules centered on septic, sewage and other direct health-and-safety risks; Director White said he would cooperate with planning and return with revised proposals if requested. No new countywide enforcement action was adopted as part of this meeting.