Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Buildings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bedford adopts vacant‑building registry ordinance to target long‑term derelict properties
Summary
Council adopted an ordinance establishing a townwide vacant‑building registry that triggers after 12 months of qualifying vacancy/derelict conditions; the measure includes fees limited by state law and allows staff enforcement while preserving other legal remedies.
The Bedford Town Council on May 5 adopted an ordinance creating a vacant‑building registry to identify and apply fees to properties meeting the ordinance's vacancy or derelict criteria. The registry, as drafted and adopted, applies townwide and is triggered when a property meets at least one of the qualifying conditions (vacant for 12 months, derelict or boarded and disconnected from utilities, or occupied by an unauthorized person).
Town counsel clarified the ordinance uses an "or" standard for the criteria, meaning a building need meet one qualifying condition to be eligible for the registry. Counsel noted the registry does not require owners to bring buildings up to code; it imposes fees for unaddressed dereliction and gives the town contact information for absentee owners to facilitate remediation. Staff said the ordinance is intended to motivate absentee landlords to maintain properties rather than function as the primary enforcement mechanism.
Council members raised concerns about the registry being published online and the potential for increased insurance costs or reputational harm; counsel said while the town could avoid proactive online publication, records are subject to Virginia's Freedom of Information Act if requested. Council also asked about the interaction with existing enforcement remedies such as maintenance codes and criminal-blight statutes; counsel replied those tools remain available and may be more appropriate in some cases.
Several council members underscored the intent to target absentee owners who leave properties to decline and emphasized that the ordinance does not apply to actively marketed or for‑rent properties. The council debated fee levels and acknowledged state law sets limits on fees; staff said the town's ability to raise fees beyond the state cap is constrained.
After discussion council voted to adopt the ordinance (motion carried with the recorded roll‑call language indicating four members in favor). Council asked staff to monitor implementation and return with clarifications if issues arise.
