Laserfiche WebLink
M Mli <br />of -way without license and pursuant to Resolution 90-75." Mr. <br />Mensing asked how we would handle the ones that are now in place. <br />Mr. Davis explained the reason for including that as a <br />prohibited activity is primarily due to maintenance of County <br />drainage systems as well as the ability of those systems to retain <br />and detain storm water, which is their primary design function. <br />The problem we have many times is swimming pools and water <br />softeners discharging into the drainage systems. This activity <br />keeps the drainage systems wet so that maintenance crews cannot <br />come in with equipment and mow them. We get repeated- requests for <br />mowing back lot ditches, front yard swales and all that kind of <br />thing, and it is very difficult for maintenance crews to maintain <br />those ditches when there is a foot of water in them throughout the <br />year. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked about the fluid discharge systems <br />that are already in place. <br />Director Davis said if they are in the right-of-way and they <br />are not supposed to be there and they are causing a problem, then <br />they may have to be removed. On County right-of-way which is <br />dedicated to the public for the benefit of the public, private <br />systems, unless they are under a franchise or some approved <br />mechanism, simply should not encumber that right-of-way or <br />easement. The enforcement procedure comes into play when we have <br />a problem. <br />Mr. Mensing addressed paragraph 2(d) on page 7, allowing <br />parking on a County right-of-way for 48 continuous hours and asked <br />why it was not limited to 24 hours. <br />Director Davis responded that we do not want to encourage <br />people to park abandoned vehicles in the right-of-way. The 48 <br />hours took into consideration parking a vehicle on the shoulder of <br />the road over a weekend. After calling and asking other cities and <br />counties in the state, 48 hours seemed to be the time frame they <br />used. So it was simply a judgment call. <br />Mr. Mensing said his other questions had been addressed and <br />thanked the Board. <br />Edmund Cannon, 295 16th Avenue, described his neighborhood as <br />an extension of Indianapolis Speedway. His concern was with the <br />residential neighborhoods where maintenance crews and lawn care <br />crews park their vehicles and trailers in the roadway, blocking <br />traffic and creating hazardous conditions, particularly at corners. <br />He also mentioned this type of activity blocks access to mailboxes <br />which interferes with the delivery of mail. Mr. Cannon asked that <br />this ordinance be passed primarily from the standpoint of safety. <br />35 <br />