Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, August 13, 1993 TAG: 9308130293
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B3 EDITION: STATE
SOURCE: MARK MORRISON STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: BEDFORD LENGTH: Medium
But whether the Bedford County Board of Supervisors and the Board of Zoning Appeals will end up in court - against each other - remains to be seen.
Neither side backed down in a joint meeting held Wednesday night to air their differences. The Board of Zoning Appeals still wants the supervisors to enforce its rulings on building requirements, and the supervisors still want the option of not enforcing those rulings when they see fit.
However, the boards did agree to improve communication between them, possibly by forming a joint committee consisting of two members from each board to discuss zoning appeal issues.
This does not rule out going to court.
In fact, the threat of a Board of Zoning Appeals lawsuit against the supervisors still looms over their dispute about who should have the last say on zoning appeal questions.
Should it be the supervisors, who enact and enforce setback restrictions on buildings and who spend tax dollars to take violators to court? Or should it be the Board of Zoning Appeals, which is appointed by the court specifically to mediate boundary questions?
John White, chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals, argued that final authority rested with his board. He contended it was wrong for the supervisors not to enforce a decision simply because they did not agree with it.
A lawyer hired by the Board of Zoning Appeals, Arelia Langhorne, has prepared a lawsuit asking the court to compel the supervisors to enforce Board of Zoning Appeals decisions without exception.
The lawsuit has not been filed.
Nonetheless, the possible suit angered the supervisors. They were especially upset about paying Langhorne's $1,500 fee with county funds. This meant the supervisors essentially were paying to sue themselves, and they doubted that would be looked at kindly by taxpayers.
Both boards have agreed they want to avoid going to court.
But Langhorne attended Wednesday's joint meeting. She did not participate, and White said she was not compensated through the county for her time there.
Repeating earlier warnings, the supervisors said they would not pay for the Board of Zoning Appeals to take them to court. Rather, they would transfer its money allocated in the county budget elsewhere.
White said after Wednesday's meeting, however, that the Board of Zoning Appeals still could pursue the lawsuit, despite the roadblock. Langhorne could file a preliminary petition with the court to force the supervisors into releasing the money.
Frustrated at the impasse between the boards, White suggested that a court ruling might be the best solution to the dispute, even though it wouldn't look good to taxpayers.
"When we go to court, let's go to court with the opposition, not in-house," countered Supervisor Henry Creasy, echoing sentiments expressed by his fellow supervisors.
Another solution would be to take the matter to the General Assembly, which could more specifically define in the state code what the enforcement relationship should be between a local government and a local zoning appeals board.
That option was not weighed Wednesday.
Both sides agreed to try to work out their differences by establishing better communication. Previously, White alone had discussed this issue with the supervisors in executive session. The two boards had not met together before Wednesday.
by CNB