According to state planners, Bedford County's rules allowing additional houses on farm lots are already more permissive than other counties', and weakening them further -- as suggested by some county commissioners -- would cripple the county's zoning resolution.

State planner Bo Logan, who works regularly with Bedford County Planning Commission, and Logan's supervisor, Phil Maples, a regional director for the state planning office, discussed the issue with Bedford County Planning Commission Tuesday.

Members of Bedford County Board of Commissioners had been invited to attend the meeting as well, but the only county commissioners present were the two who also serve on the planning commission -- Linda Yockey and Tony Smith.

At issue is the rule allowing only one principal structure per lot -- a basic principle of zoning regulation, since that's what lets the zoning document control setback requirements, road frontage requirements and so on.

If a property owner wants to put more than one home on a lot, it must first be divided into two lots of record, even if both lots remain under the same ownership. That requires that a survey be conducted, which is an expense to the property owner.

Outbuildings, such as a garage or shop, are allowed on the same lot as the principal home or business.

The one-structure-per-lot rule is nothing new; it was debated, discussed and explained throughout the county's consideration of zoning in the 1990s, and has been a part of the county's zoning resolution ever since it took effect in 1998.

Bedford County, unlike most other counties, makes an exception to this rule -- in the case of lots of 15 or more acres, two additional homes can be placed for the benefit of family members or farm employees. But each must be sited so that the lots could be properly divided in the future.

"People need to think down the road," said Phil Maples, regional director of the state's local planning assistance office. Properties can and do change hands, and a concession made for a family situation now could cause problems when someone else owns the property in the future.

The 15-acre farm rule is already more permissive than most other counties. But county commissioners Roger Brothers and J.D. "Bo" Wilson -- both of whom were on the commission when zoning was originally passed -- have complained in recent months about the one-structure-per-lot rule, saying that it's unfair to property owners who might want to allow their children to build on their property. Wilson complained because he had to file a subdivision plat in order to give his son an acre of land to build on.

The county commission asked the planning commission to consider changing the rule. The planning commission had already recommended earlier this year that the rule be left as it is. But in April, County Commission again asked the planners to reconsider.

Maples said the planners have already ruled on the issue and don't really need to do so again.

Bo Logan, the state planner who works regularly with the local planning commission, has written a memo explaining why the one-structure-per-lot rule is needed.

Maples said that changing the one-structure-per-lot rule would be a bad idea.

"Basically, it undermines everything that you've got us here for, [and] that you're here for," he said. He said changing the rules would give landowners the power to develop "back-door" subdivisions which would circumvent the county's subdivision regulations.

He said the existing rule for 15-acre farms is already farther than other counties go.

"To me," said Maples, "you're making a big concession already. ... We don't ever recommend even what you've got."

Planning commission secretary Linda Yockey, who chaired Tuesday's meeting, said the tenant farming and dairy farming which prompted the inclusion of the 15-acre rule back in 1998 has declined greatly over the past decade, leaving less reason to have the 15-acre rule.

Planning commission member Venson Hawkins, however, said the remaining farms are consolidating, getting larger and larger, and some farmers may have more need, not less, to offer on-site employee housing.

Planning commission member Chuck Craig said there's nothing preventing a farmer from building homes for farm employees -- as long as each house is placed on a separate, surveyed lot.

Planners voted to stick by their earlier recommendation that the rules not be loosened, and to send Logan's memo on the topic to the county commission.

The county commission has the ultimate authority to adopt or amend the zoning resolution.