2004-11-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

13 On motion by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Ms. Hamilton, #3 (regulations of mopeds) was approved, as amended for clarity, by the following vote. Ayes: Dr. Brown, Ms. Caravati, Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Schilling. Noes: None. Ms. Hamilton said she has not gotten clarification about the current policies regarding signs and is uneasy adding more regulations. Ms. Knake said legislation is being sought in order to regulate signs posted in the right-of-way. She said we have to enter into an agreement with VDOT in order for the City to be able to recoup its costs through civil penalties. Mr. Schilling asked if there is a way to distinguish between amorphous businesses versus businesses with signs in front of their businesses. Ms. Knake said that the key is if the sign is in the right-of-way. She said she would be inclined to say they need to be treated the same. Dr. Brown said this only addresses allowing the City to have the benefit from civil penalties. Ms. Hamilton said she can support this, but is concerned about what we restrict and wants to be fair and supportive of businesses. Mr. Schilling said if we pass this and gain the ability to have penalties, he is concerned that if there is pressure to fine painting companies, etc., that we lock ourselves into having to go after all others as well. Mr. Lynch said Council can designate where signs can be put in the public right- of-way. Ms. Hamilton said this will only give us the ability to enforce the regulations. Mr. Schilling asked if we are enforcing those signs are we required to enforce others in the same way. Mr. Brown said that if Council prohibits signs somewhere it must be consistent. He said Council can allow signs in the zoning ordinance. On motion by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Ms. Hamilton, #5 (civil penalties for signs in right-of-way violations) was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Dr. Brown, Mr. Caravati, Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Schilling. Noes: None. Mr. Lynch said he is not sure what problem the legislation concerning activity of former Councilors is trying to address. He said he does not see having to wait a year, and feels that full disclosure is more important. Ms. Hamilton said she does not see a year as onerous and noted that the Planning Commission has such a restriction. Mr. Caravati said that many localities have such a restriction, and said there is a perception that former Councilors have an advantage after coming out of office. Mr. Brown said there would be a year prohibition if a Councilor or employee was substantially involved in a matter while in office. Responding to a question from Dr. Brown, Mr. Brown said that the Planning Commission restriction is part of their by-laws, but he does not know if it is legally enforceable. Ms. Hamilton said narrow tailoring is needed to prevent the perception of a conflict of interest.