10/15/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M M M Commissioner Wheeler stressed the need to coordinate the ordinance with the state statute in order to authorize our code enforcement officers to issue summonses for violations of the code. County Administrator Chandler commented that within any process of law enforcement or code enforcement, the discretion and judgment of the enforcement officer can cure a problem with a simple warning. County Attorney Vitunac clarified it would be more a police function than a code function because the right-of-way itself is not private property. The illegal use of public property would be a violation of a county ordinance; enforcement would be primarily the sheriff's function. Public Works Director Davis reported working with various enforcement individuals on a day-to-day basis and staff has found that certain activities, for example, right-of-way use permit, construction or other activity in the right-of-way, placement of structures or objects, would require enforcement and monitoring by engineering inspectors because they know where the right-of-way limits are located and can determine whether a particular activity is detrimental to the right-of-way. In cases where it is a matter of regulatory signage, such as "no parking" areas, those would be enforced by law enforcement officers and tickets issued where applicable. Chairman Bird directed the discussion to page 9 of the ordinance, paragraph 3(e), regarding marginal access roads and other local roads, and felt the phrase "may require driveway relocation" could cause some problem. Director Davis explained that this requirement would come into play, only when we are having safety problems, where a congested area is a hazard to the general public. It is not to require people to relocate driveways simply because we do not have a major marginal access road network; but in the future, as the County traffic grows on the road systems, it may be something that we may want to exercise. Chairman Bird wished to clarify that, even though there is an existing business which has a secondary road, they would not be forced to close their original access, unless there develops a real safety problem, and Director Davis said that is the intent. Commissioner Bowman pointed out on page 9, paragraph (b), 12th line down, it says, "The Public Works Director may ask the mitered ends or endwalls on local roads or residential use roads." She suggested the word "question" or "request" in place of "ask," and Director Davis agreed it should read "may require.'' Commissioner Bowman asked for clarification on the term 33 0 CT 15 1991 BOOK 04U