Minutes 08/24/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

". ~ ~ j t, TUESDAY AUGUST 24, 1982 that certain sections of the proposed ordinance are yet subject to concurrence by this agency. As to the 2~ feet limitation on vegetative growth, Mr. Smith advocated the need for a spec i- fied growth limitation, ~s imposed by several other Virginia local governments, to assure successful prosecution of violators, even though (under the proposed ordinance) non- compliance would not be adjudged solely on this factor but, rather, on whether any vegetative growth or overgrowth would constitute a safety or health hazard. And, as Assistant City Manager-Public Works Director George W. Brown pointed out, while charged with the respon- sibility of determining when and if a public health violation exists under the proposed ordinance, actually the regional Health Department would make such determinations. Various members of Council also commented on facets of the proposed ordinance, with the consensus pointing to the goals being sought through a cooperative community spirit and effort rather than a policing action; and, furthermore, an apparent concurrence with Councilman West's expressed intent, should his adopting motion be passed, that Council will make changes in the ordinance, as deemed necessary, should any provisions thereof be found oppressive or harassing. There being no other persons desiring to be heard on this matter, the public hearing was declared closed; whereupon motion by Councilman West, seconded by Vice-Mayor Oakes, that the proposed ordinance be adopted, subject to the revising thereof to the extent of placing a limitation of three (3) feet upon vegetative overgrowth and a safe- guard provision for ornamental shrubbery (unless, in the latter case, safety hazards exist), Council passed the motion by a vote of four-to-one, with Mayor Cole voting against the motion to adopt, the record noting that Mayor Cole has questioned from the out- set the need to specify any limitation on vegetative overgrowth inasmuch, as previously cited, the existence of a public hazard or a public health hazard must be claimed and proved coincident with the summonsing and convicting of a violator. The adopted ordinance follows: