As the city has “grown up” we’ve had to augment our zoning and building enforcement efforts over the years. About the time I was elected to my first term the big issue was overcrowding. One of the ways localities combat these kinds of problems is building and zoning code enforcement. At that time, we had 1 zoning inspector (Herndon had 6) and I brought forward a request to add several more in order to help police the evolving situation in our City.
The historical approach to zoning enforcement in Manassas is best termed “the quest for compliance”. The leadership in Manassas long ago made the decision that what they really wanted was compliance. They did not care at the time whether someone paid a fine – they just wanted the grass cut or the car off the lawn. That has worked well enough over the years but the situation has evolved: the “quest for compliance” methodology works well enough when people are inclined to comply. when they are not, it leads to endless correspondance. The next step would be to drag the offender into court and I just don’t know how much sense that makes.
So, I discovered about 4 weeks ago that the City used to fine people that didn’t abide by certain zoning laws but that we discontinued the practice at least 10 years ago. The thought at the time was that it really wasn’t worth the trouble to write tickets when what you were really after was compliance.
Enforcement of zoning laws hasn’t a punative exercise for us.
This being the case, I asked the staff for a discussion at the last Land Use meeting and it was enlightening. Our inspectors indicate that, as time has gone by, more of their time has been consumed with fewer cases – those that aren’t interested in compliance. In addtion, we only need alter the law to reimpose the fines. You can set those fines only on certain classes of infractions if you like. According to our inspections staff who were present, the majority of these repeat offenders are in the tall grass and cars parked in yards category. So, instead of endless warnings and violations, we could simply ticket offenders – the hope of course is that a modest fine will get the attention of those who aren’t inclined to respond to violation notices.
The staff is working up a recommendation for the next Land Use Meeting and we’ll take it up then.
May 7, 2011 at 10:38 am
I’ve always said that when there is no consequence to ones actions the actions still continue.
May 7, 2011 at 11:58 am
In addition to a fine, I wish you could make it mandatory for chronic violators to attend a basic class that covers the “dirty dozen” violations that make them hard-to-live-with neighbors. Use the fines to pay the instructor. Virginia Cooperative Extension might be willing to partner. They do all sorts of other classes.
May 7, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Be sure to include our fearless Police Chief in the process…as I understand the history, it used to be you could call MCPD about a zoning issue, and the cop would come out. Chief Skinner passed it back over the fence to Zoning. On that thought though….
In other localities, Zoning Inspectors get empowered to write a “civil ticket” for the grass, cars on lawn, etc etc etc listed in our City Code. This ought to be the process vs. the inspectors just leaving letters.
May 8, 2011 at 9:30 am
@Ray: you are correct, it used to be that the PD got involved but only for tall grass I believe. I’m not sure why that ever happened but it was changed back a couple of years ago.
I believe you’ll see the City move towards the ticket model in the near future. It’s unfortunate really as we aren’t interested in the money – we’re interested getting the grass cut….
May 8, 2011 at 10:13 am
I wonder how many of the “violator” properties are in foreclosure or otherwise unoccupied? So who do you fine?
But for occupied properties, its unfortunate but apparently some folks just don’t care. Perhaps hitting them in the pocketbook is the only way to obtain the desired behavior?
As to some mandatory class, I’m not sure I get how that could be setup, let alone enforced.
May 8, 2011 at 10:58 am
@DavidB…the City when it added Inspectors a couple years back also was a bit proactive for abandoned, foreclosure, and even rental properties. For the first two, a process was set in place where when the City came out to cut grass, a lien was placed against the property so, when eventually sold, the City recoups some funds. For abandoned/derelict properties, had to wait for the GA to modify the Code (which they did) so the City could take more action. Liz Via-Gossman presented about two weeks ago to Council the update on the various properties (i.e. Prescott Ave. House) that are on the short-list.
Rental properties were also tweaked in the rules, and Mickey Rhoades (our City Housing Manager) was given a bit more authority to both go after the Landlords, and also work a bit to get them together to make sure they understand the rules. Tied in with that is work by Cindy Brookshire to get a “Neighborhood Work Group” together to meet monthly to discuss issues and find common solutions. This group is open to HOA, Landlords, and anyone interested in working toward better neighborhoods.
I am a big advocate to hitting in the checkbook – and also setting it up so when the Zoning Inspectors are not working (this means weekends) and we see people doing things they shouldn’t (like pull an engine in their driveway), we have a means to call and get enforcement. The letter method was tried, and just not working in across the board.
May 8, 2011 at 11:27 am
Raymond, do you really propose fining people for working on vehicles in their own driveway? I tell you what, I take care of my property, but the day an inspector shows up to my property and tells me I can’t fix MY car in MY driveway you can be sure I will tell him to get the he**off my property. Sometimes we ask to much ofbour government. Be careful what you ask for. By the way, it is not against any City code to perform ant type of work on your vehicle in your driveway.
May 8, 2011 at 11:46 am
MCR: I wouldn’t overreact to Ray’s suggestion. All things in balance. I don’t think anyone is interested in fining you for changing your oil. These cases are rarely gray areas. We have a neighbor who has an open garage and there’s always a car under reconstruction in there. The area isn’t exactly attractive but it’s policed up. Whatever, that’s cool.
However, I’ve also seen houses with 4-5 cars in front, at least some of which are inoperable and they’re taking parts from one to another – others have run full-on retail car repair operations out of their homes. That’s a bridge too far.
May 8, 2011 at 4:22 pm
In the same way that a judge may be more lenient if a traffic violator enrolls in a safe driving course, a fine for neighborhood “dirty dozen” violations could be reduced if the violator enrolled in an education course.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/64319.html
May 8, 2011 at 4:30 pm
I too take care of my property and if someone comes to tell me I can not work on my car on my property that I pay 3500 dollars a year to the city in taxes , we sir are going to have a fight.
I am in favor of cleaning up derelict properties, deal with overcrowding issues, fire hazards, but not goverment over reaching into the average citizens life.
I would hope that some investigation could be done rather than just writing tickets. Some folks may not be cutting their grass or the car inspection expired due to severe problems or health issues and maybe a neighbor can be asked to help rather than ticketing and adding to their problems. I cut grass for a couple of people in this situation.
May 8, 2011 at 4:46 pm
I would have to agree that a warning first with a number to call as there might be extenuating circumstances. After one warning then you get the ticket. If it’s not cleaned up or the violation is not corrected then they are fined until it is.
May 8, 2011 at 5:10 pm
On a separate but related topic, the Manassas Police Department also used to enforce the requirement that property owners remove snow from sidewalks in accordance with the relevant City ordinance. When I was a kid in Manassas, if your sidewalk wasn’t cleared as required by law, then you got a visit from the police with a polite reminder to clear the walk asap. Over the last couple of years, especially with the heavier snow storms, I’ve noticed that many/most folks don’t clear their walks, or wait days to do so (of course it doesn’t help that most sidewalks in town were built right at the back of the curb, so walks have to be cleared several times as a result of being repeatedly plowed over with snow). Any thoughts on this topic, Andy? And thanks for bringing zoning enforcement to the fore!
May 8, 2011 at 8:14 pm
About car repairs – for all of us that do it RIGHT by making sure there are drop cloths/drop pans/absorbants/dispose of properly and have cars in garages to work on or have a factory cover for an inoperative vehicle sitting in their driveway: Thank You! I only do certain work on my car – anything that does not trip the stupid onboard computers – and also work on my gas lawn mower. But every precaution is made not to muck up my driveway or yard when I do it.
MCR: True, no direct law that says we cannot work on our cars. What is in the Code is that it is against the law to “put an offensive or contanimating substance in any street or highway OR to allow any offensive or contanimating substance to flow into any such street or highway” Sec. 78-140(c) So, if someone is doing any work where any fluids (without anything to catch them) hits their driveway and they wash it off into the street, that’s where the line gets crossed. Lots of other references under Chapter 118 for Sewers and Sewage Disposal.
NOT my point to say people cannot work on their cars – it is the ones do and do not care about washing down the driveways, or working in the street and letting all kinds of crap just either sit until the rain washes it into the sewers. Had two neighbors – one wanted to pull the block and switch engines in the driveway; one working on the gas tank float dropped the full gas tank off the car. That second one got him a visit from the Fire Marshall.
There are lots of interesting little twists in our City Code when you look through it. Some of it real “Victorian”, some of it down right makes sense. By the way, go ahead and tell the Zoning Inspector to &$%$ off – guess what? He can call MCPD and swear a complaint under Sec. 78-212 for profane swearing in public. Don’t think that will stick? Look to the recent 4th Circuit Court ruling.
May 8, 2011 at 8:22 pm
ooooooohhhhh Andy! Inoperative vehicles – one per property if outside and must be covered with a factory car cover (no blue tarps) and only got 60 days (Sec 78-134 and Sec 130-83(a) tell ya all about it). Switching parts falls into that inoperative rule too.
And my point about fluids washing into the street – all the new Chessie Bay rules make it even more stringent for enforcement. Otherwise, why are we raising rates for water & sewer since the point on those made (and defended by me) is all the new rules?
May 8, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Mr. Beverage, I didnt post to pick a fight. I actually agree with you. However, the government getting involved in certain aspects of my private life concerns me. In reference to your 4th circuit court ruling where they ruled the officer did not violate the arrestee rights was made because the court had not rule on that issue. Meaning, at the time the officer arrested the person for cursing, there were no court ruling on the validity of the arrest. So the officer was acting in good faith. However, there has since been a ruling and I suggest you research that ruling. By the way, telling someone to get the hell off my property is not a violation of the law and I challenge you to find one magistrate who would issue such an arrest warrant. Not going to happen. But mr. Beverage, we actually agree pretty much 100%. I expect my neighbors to maintain their property to at least the minimum standards. Also any number of inoperable vehicles are allowed if they are shielded from view. State law defines what shielded from view is. The vehicles must be visible from the public right of way. Meaning an inspector can not go into a neighbors yard to look into the rear yard of a potential violator. Just something to think about. Basically you can have junk yard in your yard if it can’t be seen from the street. You can thank a legislator in Virginia Beach for that loop hole.
May 9, 2011 at 8:27 am
FYI –Manassas City Council regular public meeting tonight 5:30 at City Hall.
Agenda includes:
– First reading of budget and tax ordinances, which will require over
twenty separate votes. The second readings are slated for this Wed.
– Staff report on status of 9300 Prescott.
May 9, 2011 at 8:29 am
MCR, not picking a fight either – just pointing out one of the things in our Code that is very “Victorian”… I have heard our beloved Andy swear a couple of times in Council worksessions, and also the full Council meeting and chuckle knowing that little piece in just about everywhere Virginia local codes. And I am also a little “protective” lately of City employees as they get bashed on a regular basis, and not often thanked. That is why when I get a chance at Citizens Time to say thanks, I mention them.
Agree also to skip debating what a local magistrate or judge would do or not do. By the way, that loop hole is an interesting thing – if the Inspector stays on the designated easements of properties, that works too for viewing. Also, there was an issue here in my neighborhood where several of us lodged a complaint – I even invited the Inspector on my property onto my deck to view the reason for mine. Fortunately, the individual had a couple of other work orders in place on his house, so when the Inspector had to do his walk-around to look at the work, spied the other issue. Sometimes, the system as it exists works.
May 9, 2011 at 8:33 am
It would be a real change in policy to not allow inspectors to warn or notify first. This just gives us another tool to get someone’s attention. Tall Grass really isn’t a good example as public works will simply cut the grass at some point and invoice the owner. However, we do have a number of problem properties where the owners just ignore violations. They might respond better if it will cost them actual money!
May 9, 2011 at 10:09 am
Times have changed. The fact that we have a large illegal alien population who seem to not want to follow any laws or community standards has really changed the City in a very negative way. No, it’s not just illegals, but, given that illegals should not even be here in the first place, just makes it more maddening.
IMO, this sort of goes hand in hand with the break down of cluster we see daily on our roads. It does appear many people simply are not concerned with how their driving habits and housing upkeep impact others.
While I believe that it is generally better that we have more home owners, the fact is there are some who should not be home owners because they are unable to understand the responsibility of owning the home.
I’d go with larger fines, and if that does not work, maybe a weekend in the poke will get people to wake up.
May 9, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Mr. Beverage, the shielded from view only applies to inoperable vehciles. Any other violation may be viewed from another property. Trash, construction without permits or any other type of code issue. For some reason a legislator in VA Beach decided that inoperable vehicles should be allowed to junk a community if they cant be seen from the street. Never mind you can see it while you are on your deck during the summer. Many of my friends are local government employees as am I (public safety), just not in Manassas. So I also get upset when I hear people bash them. Everyone has the opportunity to apply for any job. I didn’t hear the private sector employees complaining when they were getting bonus after bonus during the very good times. For the most part, local government and state employees don’t get bonuses. So thank you.
May 9, 2011 at 1:50 pm
on a different tangent, but within the issue of compliance:
Why is it when someone comes in and says “I want to build a shed in my backyard” and then proceeds to put up the Taj Mahal and call it a shed…and there is no order to bring it down to size?
And why is it this violator can leave his structure up, but another neighbor builds a shed, Zoning Inspector spies it from the road and speaks to the neighbor about moving it back five feet from property line (easement rule) and knocking off four feet of the length to bring it within the definition of a “shed”?
If one has to be modified, why not the other? Why does this City not make people who are not in compliance tear down their structures/modify to bring into compliance?
May 9, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Mr. Beverage, an accessory structure or structures may have a square footage of 40% of the principal structure. So if your principal structure is 1000 square feet (foot print) you can have 400 square feet of accessory structures. Also the maximum height is 22 feet but never more than the height of the principal structure. The word “shed” is not defined in the code. It is an accessory structure.
May 9, 2011 at 3:25 pm
MCR, agree the code does refer to “accessory structures” as those that require a building permit. A “shed” is defined in the Code under Sec 130-88 as one of the freestanding structures not requiring a building permit as long as it complies with the other requirements. Of course, that includes the 40% lot coverage rule…and also if someone wants electrical and water run out to it, that is another set of rules. When you look at Zoning Certifcate rules, if the structure is less than 150 sq ft, it is most often referred to as a shed. Of course, even Zoning flips back and forth between the word shed and accessory structure….although for insurance purposes, accessory structure is the standard term for coverage regardless if called a shed/playhouse/accessary/detached structure (all found amongst the City’s wording)
May 9, 2011 at 3:28 pm
I got real good at knowing the difference between shed or accessory structure because of the Taj Mahal to my left, and the neighbor two doors down that had to modify his, by the way. At least on the Taj, the neighbor got stopped after he had it up on his future addition and expansions plan.
May 9, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Civil fines differ from criminal fines in several ways, not the least of which is the burden of proof. Absent statutory/regulatory language to the contrary, criminal fines require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. With civil fines the standard is less, generally a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. just enough to tilt the scale.) Thus a civial fine is easier to prove up.
Many (but not all) civil enforcement schemes allow for some discretion. Thus an inspector or officer may first give a warning or may go directly to the fine route. Assuming you have faith in your inspectors I would prefer the discretionary route.
There should be a sliding scale for repeat offenders. It would not have to involve the same exact offense. (Just like in criminal law, totally unrelated felonies can still lead to enhanced penalties under repeat offender status).
Unfortunately, some folks will calculate whether it is worthwhile to violate the code and pay the fine. It is with those people in mind that the code should be written, interpreted and enforced, with appropriate discretion along the way. This is not rocket science.
May 9, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Adding to what Rich says, criminal fines can only be imposed (and collected) by the court while civil fines can be imposed by the locality. A problem I see here is that at least some of these zoning violations are punishable as misdemeanors. That means they are criminal, not civil procedures. The Virginia Code allows localities to collect civil fines IN LIEU of criminal action. So it seems to me that the city must first decriminalize these violations before it can begin to assess civil penalties.
May 9, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Patty you are correct. The City must choose one or the other but not both. Rich, the VA code does not allow for an inspector to go directly to issuing a fine. There must be a notice issued first with the right of appeal mentioned in the notice. The only inspector allowed to go directly to fines/courts is a fire inspector/fire marshal for violations of the Statewide Fire Prevention Code. They are class 1 misdemeanors. Mr. Beverage, A shed by definition is an accessory structure. Also the current code exempts all buildings 200 square feet or less from building permits as of March 1.