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