Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lynch thanked the committee and said the ordinance is a great piece of work <br />and he is happy to support it. He said he is looking forward to additional steps and would <br />like to see the following addressed: streams that are not currently being developed that <br />have erosion problems and clean-up of the network of smaller streams. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown echoed Mr. Lynch's comments. He said the ordinance is a great first <br />step and he is looking forward to addressing other concerns and smaller waterways. <br /> <br /> Mr. Craig Brown, City Attorney, asked for Council's direction on the effective <br />date of the ordinance and whether it should apply to site plans submitted but not <br />approved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling asked for guidance from the City Attorney, and asked what was <br />done in the case of the zoning ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said that the zoning ordinance was effective upon its date of passage, <br />but any application filed as of that date was subject to the old ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he feels the effective date should be the date of passage. He said <br />he does not see that it would be onerous or unreasonably burdensome to include plans <br />that have been submitted. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tolbert said that at least two projects will be seriously impacted and the new <br />ordinance could render at least one of the lots unusable, and there are another 20 to 30 <br />sites plans in the works. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch asked that under those circumstances, can they not be mitigated, and <br />Mr. Tolbert said they may or may not be able to be mitigated. He said he feels Council <br />needs to be consistent. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling made a motion to amend the ordinance so that any site plan already <br />submitted will fall under the old ordinance, and this ordinance will be effective for any <br />plans submitted from here on. <br /> <br />Mr. Caravati seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hamilton asked if that would mean that no mitigation would need to be <br />offered for those plans already submitted, and Mr. Tolbert said that is correct. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he cannot support the amendment. He said the ordinance is <br />overdue and the development community has had ample notice that this is coming. He <br />said remediation of the waterways is badly needed. <br /> <br />Ms. Hamilton concurred. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown said he thinks the ordinance should be effective as soon as possible <br />and supported implemented as of the date of adoption. <br /> <br /> The motion to amend was denied by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati and <br />Mr. Schilling. Noes: Dr. Brown, Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Lynch. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said he would love to support the ordinance, but cannot based on the <br />defeat of the amendment. He said it is an issue of fundamental fairness. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said we have a long way to go with the ordinance and Neighborhood <br />Development Services needs to have staff support. He said educational support is also <br />needed. <br /> <br /> The ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE TO REENACT CHAPTER 10 <br />(EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL) OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY <br />CODE AS THE CITY WATER PROTECTION ORDINANCE," offered on September <br /> <br /> <br />