Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, July 28, 1993 TAG: 9307280125
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C1 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: MARK MORRISON STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: BEDFORD LENGTH: Medium
Nor will taxpayers foot the bill.
At least not if the supervisors can help it.
The supervisors say they now will require the Board of Zoning Appeals to get their approval first before being allowed to spend public money on outside legal work.
This essentially handcuffs the Board of Zoning Appeals from filing a lawsuit against the supervisors that it has paid a Lynchburg lawyer more than $1,500 to prepare.
Or as Supervisor Henry Creasy put it, "I'd say their chances are somewhere between slim and none" for getting further funds to pursue the lawsuit.
"So be it," said John White, chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals. He said the supervisors having that control "probably is not a bad thing."
Still, the dispute between the two boards remains far from settled.
At issue is a philosophical debate over how the supervisors should enforce rulings made by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals believes the supervisors should back its decisions to the letter.
The supervisors believe that sometimes there should be exceptions.
The lawsuit would have asked the courts to order the supervisors to enforce all of the Board of Zoning Appeals' rulings - without exception.
Much of the dispute so far has centered around a swimming pool in Forest that one neighbor mistakenly built too close to another neighbor's property line.
The pool owners asked the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to the county's setback rule on pools and other structures. The pool was off by less than two feet, making it 13 feet from the line instead of the required 15 feet.
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied the variance.
It then looked to the supervisors to enforce its decision, and force the owners to move their pool. But the supervisors refused, creating a debate between the boards over which has the final say on these issues.
That's when the Board of Zoning Appeals hired its own lawyer.
A preliminary draft of the lawsuit was given to the supervisors this month. Initially, the supervisors said they did not believe the Board of Zoning Appeals had the legal authority to file such a suit. The lawyer for the Board of Zoning Appeals contended that it did.
Either way, the supervisors decided to assume greater control over county money spent on outside legal work. Prior to this, how the Board of Zoning Appeals spent its allotted budget was not restricted.
Creasy said the supervisors wanted some way to block the Board of Zoning Appeals from filing a lawsuit against them - that they essentially would pay for themselves.
The supervisors were upset by the $1,500 that the Board of Zoning Appeals already had spent. "We think they are wrong with what they have done with taxpayers money," Creasy said.
Meanwhile, both boards have agreed to a joint meeting to discuss the dispute. It is tentatively scheduled for Aug. 11. Creasy said he expects the meeting to be open to the public.
John White, the Board of Zoning Appeals chairman, said he would have preferred a closed meeting. All of the discussions by the Board of Zoning Appeals about the lawsuit previously have been done in executive session.
But Creasy doubts the joint meeting will appease the Board of Zoning Appeals. He said some degree of "reasonableness" needs to be applied on setback restrictions.
That doesn't mean people should start ignoring the rules, but it doesn't mean forcing someone to move a swimming pool by two feet, either, he said.
"I don't think you're going to see us change our minds."
Memo: shorter version ran in the Metro edition.