Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-10-21 adj444 October 21, 1982 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 21, 1982, at~4:00 P.M., in Meeting Room 5, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesvi. lle, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from October 20, 1982. Board Members Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. COoke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 4:05 P.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Board Member Absent: Mr[ J. T. Henley, Jr. Officers Present: St. John. CounTy Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. Planning Commission Members Present: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Norma J. Diehl and Messrs. Allan Kindrick, Timothy M. Michel and James R. Skove. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:09 P.M. Mr. Fisher said this meeting is for a joint discussion with the Planning Commission in response to the Commission's memorandum of September 15, 1982, regarding Ordinance Development and Enforcement. The staff was requested to respond to the memorandum from Mrs. Diehl and this meeting is for the receipt of that staff report. Mr. Agnor said he, along with the Directors of Engineering, Inspections and Planning, and the County Attorney, prepared the report and he will summarize the contents of the report dated October 13, 1982. (Copy of the report is on file in the Clerk's Office.) Mr. Agnor said the report is divided into three subject categories, Education/Information Bonding and Enforcement. Under education/information, a written guide was suggested by the PlanninD Commission. However, a written guide was provided by the Planning staff in 1974 and it was determined to be minimally used by citizens. The guide was replaced by several checklists of requirements for approval of building permits, site plans, subdivision plats, and s~oi! erosion plans.. The staff has had favorable response to the checklists and feel that pr~ocedure should be continued rather than having a written guide which gives an inexperienceld person a false sense of ability to accomplish a task. The nex!t suggestion was for a resource person to be available to citizens needing assistance dmring the approval process. Mr. Agnor said members of the planning staff are currently aslsigned to a specific project and follow the project through the approval process. When the pro~ect is approved and goes to the construction stage, a person on the Inspections or Engineering staff is assigned for field inspections for compliance with conditions of approval. Therefore, Mr. Agnor said the staff believes it partially follows in concept the recommendation of the Commission. However, the staff is studying other procedures and literature from other localities to streamline the County's current process. The third recommendation of the Planning Commission was to improve public relations. Mr. Agnor said this is constantly.stressed and the staff believes that there has been some success with public relations in recent years. This will also be improved when training on the subject can be scheduled to supplement current emphasis. Mr. Agnor said the next recommendation was that information be provided to members of the building trade, in particular the construction industry. Mr. Agnor said seminars are periodically conducted by the staff with trade members concerning code changes and inspection procedures. He, also noted that an effort to improve the scheduling and sponsorship of the seminars is being planned by the staff. Another recommendation by the Commission was that the County stress owner/contractor- accountability. Mr. Agnor said preplanning and preconstruction meetings are presently held to discuss procedures and to emphasize accountability. The planning and permit processes are tied to the owners while the inspection processes deal primarily with contractors. The distinction between the accountability of the property owner and his contractors is sometimes difficult to determine. However, the staff holds the owner accountable because permits are usually issued in the owner's name and bonds are usually posted by the owner. Compliance is frequently required of the owner when there is a problem. The staff is sometimes caught in the middle of disagreements between the owner and his contractor, but tries to stay out of that position as much as possible by dealing with the owner of the property. -Ignorance of ordinances will always be involved but minimal use of that as an excuse can be realized through the Stabilization of county ordinances. Mr. Agnor said the staff believes that stability, particularly in the Zoning Ordinance, will improve the public's knowledge of the ordinance as time passes. Mr. Agnor said the Planning Commission was also concerned about bonding. With ordinance changes early this year, Mr. Agnor said improvements recommended by the Commission have been put into place and will continuously improve as procedures are amended. Mr. Agnor said in general the administration of bonds has been changed from a fragmented to a centralize system, the Calculation of amounts has improved, a blanket bond procedure to cover several projects has been adopted, and notification procedures of expiration dates has been standardiz d. Mr. Agnor said efforts to divide bonds between cash and other securities is planned in order to provide liquidity or quicker access to cash for those projects requiring such access. Coordination of calling bonds with the withholding of future permits is also being considered. Mr. Agnor said in reply to the concern about Enforcement of ordinances, the focus of the present effort is to obtain abatement of violations and compliance with ordinances. October 21, 1982 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from OCtober 20, 198219 The emphasis is to accomplish abatement and compliance within the agencies and with the methods available under the control of the Board of Supervisors, leaving Judidica! procedures as the last method. Mr. Agnor said this effort is measured by different people in varying ways. One perspective is that the effort is too stringent and another is that it is insuffi~ cient. Mr. Agnor said, in either case, the staff needs the opportunity to address the matter directly and specifically with the concerned person and not deal with second-hand information. Generally speaking, the staff believes that the County has a reputation for strict and impartial enforcement of ordinances. However, the staff is of the opinion that improvements can be made. The Commission had recommended a written policy statement be developed concerning enforcement. The staff intends over the next two months to combine several procedures in a single document for centralization purposes. Mr. Agnor said written interpretations of ordinances was also mentioned by the Commission This is a daily activity that is primarily handled verbally and the staff is of the opinion that the volume of the interpretations is so great that it would be impossible to provide them in written form. However, the staff does recommend that whenever an interpretation is written that it be distributed to the Commission and Board. Another area of concern is for prompt communication of specific and relevant information on a particular item. Mr. Agnor said when requests are made by the Commission or Board, this is normally handled in the same manner as requests from citizens. Every effort is made to respond as promptly as possible but times do vary according to workloads. Mr. Agnor said a suggestion has been made for a single office to be designated to receive complaints on enforcement matters, serve as a complaints office to investigate and respond to specific concerns. The staff does not feel that a separate office for this function is needed and that the County Executive's office serves this role for all operations. .Therefore, the recommendation is that complaints received by members of the Commission and Board be forwarded to the County Executive for examination and response. After six months of following this procedure, the County Executive will report the results to the Commission and the Board. The last area mentioned was that enforcement must be strict, prompt and meaningful. The staff feels that it has the necessary enforcement procedures to accomplish meaningful compliance with ordinances. These procedures are invoked almost daily. The severity of the violation and its danger to the health, safety and welfare of the public is the determinin factor by the staff for corrective action. Sometimes the violators are taken to court and once in court the County's legislative and administrative functions no longer prevail nor does the timetable for corrective action continue. For this reason, the judicial process for enforcement is viewed by the staff as the last resort. Mr. Agnor said the last of his report refers to a suggestion for a "ride along" program. This is an invitation to Board and Commission members to periodically accompany inspectors in the field to experience first hand the tasks associated with the responsibilities of abating violations and obtaining compliance with county ordinances and regulations. The staff feels that this program will serve to improve communications and understanding. Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairperson of the Planning Commission, was present and noted appreciation for the staff's response. She said the Commission was aware of the checklist used by the Planning Department but what was envisioned was a sequential listing of things that have to be done. Mr. James Skove, Commission member, was present and agreed with Mrs. Diehl for a sequential checklist. Mr. Timothy' Michel, Commission member, was present and said a resource person was envisioned as being available in conjunction with the checklist. Mr. Allan Kindrick, Commission member, was present and said the citizens in the County are owed more of an explanation of County ordinances and regulations than is received. A discussion followed as to a resource person being available to answer questions from the public. Mr. Agnor said there are three persons in the inspections and zoning department who now.serve the public in this capacity and the front desk personnel refer citizens to them. He also noted that the site plan review committee discusses the site plan with the applicant but does not tell the applicant what either the Health Department or the Service Authority will require, but simply channels the person to those agencies. Mrs. Diehl said that is the reason she felt a sequential listing of the procedures should be available. Mr. Fisher said the report indicates that when ordinances are changed, problems are created for the people who have to interpret and follow same. Therefore, he thought that ordinance amendments of a "housecleaning" type might be made only once or twice a year. He then suggested that the changes advertised for public hearing in November and December not be made effective until January ! unless there is an urgent need for them to be effective sooner. Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator, was present and agreed with the suggestion. DiScussion returned to the recommendation for a resource person. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with the recommendation to assign a person with no other responsibilities to this task. In reference to bonding procedures and owner/contractor accountability, Mr. David Bowerman, Commission member, was present and felt the contractor has to be accountable for his own actions as well as educating his employees. Mr. Agnor said the CountY cannot require anyone to attend a class. Mrs. Cooke said she did not feel this could be required but rather to have the opportunity available to the contractors or owners to attend a class. October 21, 1982 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from October 20~8~ Discussion then followed on what occurs if a problem goes to court. Mr. St. John said many times problems arise after the fact, in other words, after a building is occupied. Therefore, there are third parties involved. Mrs. Diehl said she would like for communications between the Inspections Department and the planning Commission to be strengthened, particularly when interpretations of regulatio~ are requested. She felt a given time for the submission of the interpretation should be emphasized to the department. At 5:47 P.M., without any further comments, Mr. Lindstrom requested an executive session to discuss legal and personnel matters relating to the enforcement of ordinances and offered motion to that effect. Mr. Fisher asked if the executive session included the Planning Commission members. Mr. Lindstrom said yes. Mr. Fisher also requested that the executive session include property acquisition. Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion for a joint executive session with Planning Commission members on property acquisition, personnel, and legal matters relating to the enforcement of ordinances. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. The Board reconvened into open session at 6:59 P.M. and immediately adjourned.