My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1992-05-04
Charlottesville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1992
>
1992-05-04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/20/2001 5:33:41 PM
Creation date
11/20/2001 4:26:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Meeting Date
5/4/1992
Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
128 <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she felt it would be useful to <br /> bring this type of issue before the City and County prior to <br /> a decision being made and questioned what precedent might be <br /> set since the community has many volunteers. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that state enabling legislation only <br />exists for this category of volunteer. Mr.i Hendrix stated <br />that he felt the situation in the City and County should be <br />equalized. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated that she felt the criteria <br />necessary to qualify for the exemption was important in that <br />it required training and significant volunteers hours. Ms. <br />Slaughter stated that she thought the state may pass other <br />similar enabling legislation in the future and she would like <br />to look at the possible ramifications in advance. <br /> <br /> On motion by Mr. Vandever, seconded by Ms. Waters, the <br />ordinance granting a tax abatement on the first $4,500 of <br />value for one vehicle for volunteer fire and rescue personnel <br />was offered and carried over to the next meeting for <br />consideration. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that Fire Chief Taliaferro had <br />requested that more stringent criteria be required than <br />required by the County ordinance and he would provide more <br />details by the next meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano stated that he would like to know the <br />County's rationale for setting the abatement at $4,500. <br /> <br />STAFF REPORT: NOISE ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT <br /> <br /> Sergeant Tom DeWitt-Rickards stated that six noise meter <br />readings are required by the court to be take in three <br />separation locations. Sgt. DeWitt-Rickards stated that one <br />problem has been identification of the person responsible for <br />the noise and added that police officers must look at <br />priorities when a noise complaint is received as the <br />complaints are typically made when other more serious 'crime <br />is occurring. Sgt. DeWitt-Rickards stated that it is the <br />Police Department's policy to give a warning to first time <br />offenders. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter questioned whether it would be possible to <br />provide written notice to property owners regarding noise <br />complaints made against tenants. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Waters regarding the <br />assumption of responsibility, Mr. Gouldman stated that the <br />persons controlling the noise are assumed to be responsible, <br />but if that cannot be determined, any tenant or owner on the <br />premises is assumed to be responsible. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she felt it would be good to <br />provide feedback to the persons calling in the noise <br />complaint. <br /> <br /> Sgt. DeWitt-Rickards explained that sector coordinators <br />are beginning to be active in neighborhoodS and he felt they <br />could provide feedback, especially for ongoing problems. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Vandever, Sgt. DeWitt- <br />Rickards stated that the policy of issuing a warning for the <br />first offense was requested by the courts, with the goal <br />being to seek voluntary compliance and noted that he felt <br />approximately 95% of those persons who are issued warnings <br />immediately comply with the request. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever expressed concern that the court was <br />requiring additional readings beyond what is required by the <br />ordinance adopted by Council. ~ <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.