2004-09-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

55 Mr. Brown noted that the existing noise ordinance covers sound from motor vehicles. Ms. Kelley said that the City can request enabling legislation in order to restrict certain types of mopeds and scooters from residential zones. Ms. Hamilton said she would like to hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Brown noted that the ordinance, as proposed, would go into effect on August 1, 2005. Mr. Lynch said he would like clarification of the noise ordinance and requiring mufflers to be in place. Dr. Brown said he knows of teenagers who have been injured on mopeds and he feels the regulations, which also apply to motorcycles, will bring more safety and thoughtfulness to their operation. On motion by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Ms. Hamilton, the ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RE-ORDAINING CHAPTERS 15 (MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC) AND CHAPTER 20 (POLICE) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (1990), AS AMENDED, TO PROVIDE FOR LICENSING AND REGULATION OF MOPEDS, BICYCLES, MOBILITY DEVICES AND SIMILAR VEHICLES" was offered and carried over to the next meeting for consideration. It was agreed that a public hearing will be held at the next meeting. ORDINANCE: WATER PROTECTION ORDINANCE Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Planner in Neighborhood Development Services, summarized the ordinance which will replace and expand Chapter 10 in the City Code. She said the main topics are: erosion and sediment control; storm water management; stream buffer requirements; and illegal discharges into the sewer system. She said that staff has reviewed the parcels affected by the stream buffer for Moore's Creek, Meadow Creek, and the Rivanna River, and 56% are not affected, 30 % are moderately impacted, 13% are in the floodway, and 1% are impacted. Mr. Lynch expressed concern that the ordinance only looks at three major waterways and not other tributaries, and asked when that will happen. Krystal Riddervold, Environmental Administrator for the City, said that everything could not be tackled at one time, and said the planning effort for step two should end by the end of the calendar year, with recommendations made early next year. Ms. Hamilton asked what "no right of appeal" means, and Ms. Kelley said that the definition of an aggrieved person is limited to the owner, permitee, adjacent and downstream property owners, and City departments. Ms. Hamilton asked if the Sierra Club would be an aggrieved party, and Ms. Kelley said no. She said there is a large difference between state and federal law and Virginia is much more limited in their definition of standing. Mr. Lynch said the City would not have to be as restrictive as the state, and if something impacts fishing or swimming, he thinks those affected should have standing. Ms. Kelley recommended against broadening the Virginia regulations on standing. She noted that this applies to permits only. Responding to a question from Mr. Brown about the issue of who can challenge decisions, Ms. Kelley said that this is not a change from the existing ordinance.