Laserfiche WebLink
258 <br /> <br />Ordinance re: <br />Minimum Housing <br />Standards <br /> <br />NEW PERMIT ZONE IN THE STARR HILL AREA" was offered and <br /> <br />carried over to the next meeting for consideration. <br /> <br /> Council considered on second reading an ordinance <br /> <br />entitled "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN SECTIONS 13-3, <br />13-4, 13-7, 13-15, 13~16, 13-18, 13-20, 13-28, 13-40 AND <br />23-2 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, 1976, AND <br />TO ADD A SECTION THERETO NUMBERED 13~28.1, THE AMENDED AND <br />NEW SECTIONS RELATING TO MINIMUM STANDARDS OF HOUSING AND <br />PROCEDURES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE STANDARDS" which was <br />offered at the meeting of Council on April 7, 1980. Mr. <br />Richard Jones, who manages rental property in the City, <br />offered some objections to certain sections in the amended <br />ordinance. He stated that he considered Section 13-15~too vague <br />as to the meaning of maintaining, predicting that this vague- <br />ness would cause undue difficulties for property owners and <br />tenants in interpreting the meaning of the ordinance. He also <br />objected to Section 13-28(a), in which handrails are required <br />for all exterior and interior stairways of three steps or more. <br />Mr. Jones stated that the State code requires handrails on <br />stairways of four steps or more in new construction. He felt <br />the proposed change in the City ordinance was inconsistent <br />with State regulations and in addition would present a con- <br />siderable expense of time and money for property owners of <br />existing buildings. He also wondered why City and coi-m~ercial <br />property should be exempt from this provision, as it is based <br />upon safety considerations. Mr. 'Wiley explained that this <br />ordinance related only to existing housing, rather than new <br />construction or commercial/City property. Mr. Wiley stated he <br />had no objection to changing the requirement from three to four <br />steps to be consistent with the State code and would check into <br />this matter. Mr. Jones felt that the safety consideration was <br />not a great enough one to justify imposing this expense for <br />existing structures, as he has had no experience of accidents <br />due to a lack of a handrail on such stairways. Mrs. O'Brien <br />comm.ented that for most people, three steps.is not steep, <br />but fOr the elderly or others with difficulty negotiating even <br />slight steps, it posed a significant hazard. Regarding Mr. <br />Jones' objection to Section 13-15, Mr. Wiley stated that this <br />section was intended to refer back to other sections in the <br />ordinance for the specifics of an owner~%s responsibilities. He <br />proposed the insertion of a clarifying phrase "as set forth <br />elsewhere in this chapter" and Mr. Jones agreed that this would <br />take care of his concern. On motion by Mr. Albro, seconded by <br />Mrs. O'Brien, the amendment of Section 13-15 and the deletion of <br />Section 13-28(a) until Mr. Wiley checked the State code was <br />unanimously approved. On motion by Mr. Albro, seconded by Mrs. <br />O'Brien, the amended ordinance was'adopted by the following <br />vote. Ayes: Mr. Albro, Mr. Brunton, Mr. Buck, Mr. Gatewood, <br /> <br /> <br />