The Mathews County Planning Commission voted unanimously Tuesday night to recommend that the board of supervisors approve an amendment to the county’s junk vehicle ordinance.
The amendment would give the planning and zoning director administrative authority to have inoperable/junk vehicles removed from private property after an owner has been notified that he/she is not in compliance with the ordinance and has been given time to correct the problem.
Remedies for the vehicle owner would include having a vehicle repaired and made operable, placing it in an enclosed structure, or screening it with fencing, a hedge, or a dense evergreen landscape at least six feet high.
Property owners would no longer be able to address the problem by placing a cover over the vehicle.
Planning and zoning director John Shaw pointed out that enforcement of the ordinance would be complaint-driven, and that he wouldn’t take action without direction from the board of supervisors.
During public comment period, two residents spoke in favor of the amendment and two spoke against it.
Marilyn Overstreet of Mathews, speaking in favor, said that one property where there are junk vehicles “looks like a bomb went off” and that if towing is an issue, there are companies that tow away vehicles free of charge.
Tim Hill of Susan, said that, as a real estate agent, he constantly gets comments about junk vehicles as he shows people around the county. He asked that the supervisors approve the amendment “so we show a good image of the county.”
Dave Skirvin of Gwynn, said that, while he agreed that there is one property that’s “over the edge,” he was against enacting harsher regulations, especially when they’re intended to address a problem with “just a couple of people.” He said that he didn’t see any difference between cars and other items such as tractors and boats that people have in their yards and that the ordinance would target just that one group.
Skirvin pointed out that towing isn’t as simple as it seems “if the owner holds onto the title.” He said that other ordinances could be used to address the problem.
Jim Hudgins of Grimstead, agreed with Skirvin, saying that he owns a number of vehicles, some of which are parked on a rental property he owns, and that he’s concerned about the effect the ordinance would have on his renter. He also questioned the effect the ordinance would have on places of business that keep vehicles on hand for spare parts.
“It’s going to infringe on people’s rights,” said Hudgins.
In response to Hudgins’s concern, planning director John Shaw said that the ordinance addresses places of business that involve vehicles.
The proposed ordinance says that “an inoperable vehicle being repaired at a permitted automobile repair business may be kept at such property for no more than sixty (60) continuous days; or the inoperable vehicle being repaired shall be kept within a fully enclosed building or structure.” It also says that the ordinance wouldn’t apply to automobile dealers, salvage dealers or scrap processors.
After the public hearing, the board of supervisors adjourned and the planning commission convened for its regular meeting.
During discussion of the proposed changes to the junk vehicle ordinance, commissioner Chuck Dawson asked Shaw whether existing ordinances could address the problem. Shaw said that other ordinances aren’t adequate for dealing with junk vehicles because they’re “crafted to take care of specific violations.”
Commission members discussed the cost of having vehicles towed and impounded, asking where the money would come from. Shaw said the county would have to incur some costs up front, but could recoup some of those costs from the owner of the vehicle.
Asked about the number of complaints received, Shaw said he had probably a dozen complaints each year, but that most property owners fix the problem without legal action being taken.
The board of supervisors is expected to take action on the inoperable/junk vehicle ordinance next Tuesday night. The meeting will be at 7 o’clock in the historic courthouse.
Public nuisance ordinance
Supervisors will also have a public hearing Tuesday night on proposed amendments to the litter control ordinance. The amendments would add the term “public nuisance” in the title of the ordinance, add derelict structures to the list of nuisances, add a fine of up to $1,000 for each violation in which a public nuisance is involved, and give the county the authority to “remove, repair or secure” any property that has been declared a public nuisance or, alternatively, to require that such a building be renovated or demolished.
In addition, the ordinance would enable the county to charge the property owner for any such action taken, and to place a tax levy on the property if the bill isn’t paid.
There are also provisions for working with the property owner to expedite building permits, refund building and permit fees, make a fair real estate assessment of the property, and abate taxes for demolished property, all upon approval by the board of supervisors.