HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 30 82 PC MinutesAugust 30, 1982
Commission held a work session on Monday, August Su►
The Albemarle County Planning Albemarle County
1982, at 12:00 p.m., in Meeting Room 5/6, Second Floor, Main Lobby,
Office Building,_401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
a A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David P. Bowerman, Vice Chairman;
present were Mrs, NormOfficio.
Mr. James Skove; Mr. Alland MraKinrR�chard•Tim Cogan werelEllen
other officials present
Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.► a
were the Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Frederick Payne.
Mrs. Diehl called the meeting
to order at 12:07 p.m. and explained to the Commission
that the purpose of the meeting was to develop a response to present to the Boar
of Supervisors on September 15, 1982, concerning the soil erosion ordinance.
The Commission discussed generally its procedure for its proposed meeting with the
Board of Supervisors on September 15, 1982. Specifically, the Commission decided
to discuss all of the ordinances and other controls relating to land use and
development, and not to limit the discussion to soil erosion ordinance.
There was a consensus that the Commission was concerned about three general areas.
These are as follows:
Fist, the dissemination of infor#qa.tion and education concerning County procedures.
ide for citizens should be established,
The Commission decided
df that
mema written should be specially trained to aid citizens in its
and that a County be indful of
lic
use. In addition, all staff membersshould
to d he induustries and citizens s
citizensconcerned.
servants and to disseminate in
The County should also stress owner/contractor accountability.
Second, the Commission decided that bonding procedures should be reviewed
especially as to the adequacy of bond amounts, a written analysis and
thoroughly, P regarding extension and re -review
record determinative of such amount, the policy was also thought that bond
of existing bonds and bond reduction policy.
revocation should be considered a viable and valuable tool.
Third, the Commission discussed at sowaslength
consensusimprovement
that thethe
Commissionenforcement
had f
ordinances relating to land use. itthe
become aware of a number of problems relatingto •enforcThe Cment such felt that, impression of enforcement efficiency
shared this perception.
least to a significant degree,
It was recommended that certain actions be taken to improve enforcement.
First, a written policy should be developed and thereafter followed making
enforcement more nearly uniform and predictable.
Notification of interpretation of various ordiinance onovions should be provided
si
to interested parties, such as the Planning
CommissSpecific, relevant information should be communicated by staff members to interested
agencies, especially to the Planning Commission.
Finally, it was decided that the most critical area in the enforcement field
would be to encourage the strict, prompt and proper enforcement of violations,
using all tools available for enforcement as; might appear appropriate in a given
case.
The Chairman was authorized and directed to prepare a general outline to present
the Commission's position to the Board of Sunervisors.
By motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at
1:56 p.m.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Secretary