Bedford County supervisors adopt broad zoning text amendments after debate over beekeeping, lot splits and planning authority

Bedford County Board of Supervisors members voted to adopt ordinance O011325-9, the implementing ordinance for text amendment TA24-0006, after extended discussion and a last-minute amendment that removed reference to “prescriptive easements” and kept final authority for certain plan-district decisions with the board.

The ordinance package rewrites multiple sections of the county zoning ordinance. Key changes include a new allowance for traditional lot subdivisions tied to access to public utilities, a new definition and permitting framework for urban beekeeping, revised parking standards for multifamily dwellings, renaming private stables to “domestic horses,” and a procedural change that would shorten approvals for certain planned-district reviews unless the planning commission denies an application and forwards that denial to the board.

Why it matters: The amendments affect how many lots can be created from a parent parcel, where beekeeping will be allowed, how many hives are permitted in residential districts, parking minimums for apartments and townhouses, and which body—the planning commission or the elected board—will have the first final say on approvals in planned districts. Those changes can affect development patterns, agriculture and small‑scale urban farming, and enforcement workloads for county staff.

What the ordinance does - Traditional lot divisions: The ordinance adds a “traditional lot subdivision” option that would allow up to 20 lots of a parent parcel if the parcel has access to public water (and in some prior drafts public sewer had been considered). The measure also creates a new section addressing how divisions are counted for parcels bisected by a public roadway, allowing divisions on both sides of the road if the road is a dedicated right‑of‑way approved by the state, not merely a claim of prescriptive easement. The board amended the proposal to replace the parenthetical reference to “prescriptive easement” with a requirement that the roadway be a dedicated right‑of‑way.

- Urban beekeeping: The ordinance adds definitions for apiary, colony/hive and urban beekeeping and places urban beekeeping as a by‑right accessory use for single‑family detached homes in R‑1, R‑2 and PRD districts, with a table limiting hives by lot size. County staff described the typical allowance as “up to 4 if you have 3 or more acres” and “2 hives for less than 2 acres” in residential areas, while agricultural zoning is not limited by the residential table. Presenting staff said beekeeping structures and management must be “maintained in accordance with the Code of Virginia and determined by the state ABRIS.”

- Grandfathering and enforcement: County staff told the board that existing beekeeping operations can be considered nonconforming (grandfathered) if property owners provide proof of continuous operation and the use was not discontinued for more than two years. Staff said each case would be handled on its facts and that, absent ordinance language, complaints about existing beehives could require a notice of violation if the use is not permitted in that zoning district.

- Parking, horses and other edits: The package changes multifamily parking from a flat “two spaces per unit” approach toward a per‑bedroom metric for apartments (the board discussed but did not adopt a strict one‑per‑bedroom maximum for townhouses). It also replaces the term “private stable” with “domestic horses” and updates standards for corrals and agricultural buildings in residential districts, and removes obsolete references (for example, standards left over for mini‑warehouses).

Positions and debate - Planning commission: The county planner told the board the planning commission held a public hearing November 12, 2024, and voted 7–0 to recommend portions of the amendments. The planning commission urged restoring a one‑acre minimum for beekeeping and recommended county‑initiated rezoning in some locations, saying the proposed combination of relaxed subdivision limits and roadway counting could allow “too many parcel divisions” that would harm the agricultural character of AR (Agricultural Residential) areas.

- Supervisors and citizens: Supervisors raised practical and legal concerns about grandfathering, enforcement, and whether approving broad subdivision allowances would cede too much control from the elected board to administrative or quasi‑administrative bodies. A local land surveyor, Russell Nixon, urged the board to retain final review authority, saying planning commission decisions are advisory under state law and that the board represents district interests. Several supervisors noted the board could still take up denials from the planning commission if it so chose; the adopted motion explicitly kept the board’s option to act.

Vote and amendments The board approved the ordinance as amended. The board removed the prescriptive‑easement language and limited the roadway‑based counting to dedicated rights‑of‑way; it also voted not to delegate final authority over certain plan‑district reviews to the planning commission. The motion to adopt the ordinance as amended was made and seconded on the record and carried on a roll call with all board members recorded as voting yes.

What’s next The ordinance will be codified as O011325‑9. Staff and applicants will use the new definitions and standards when processing subdivision, site‑plan and special‑use applications. Planning staff told the board they will return or refine related townhome parking/design amendments to the planning commission in a subsequent packet.

Ending: The board’s action changes both technical standards and local development process. Supervisors said the county can revisit numeric limits and enforcement language later if problems emerge.