Following up on citizen complaints about construction sites in a subdivision, the town manager consulted with legal staff, reporting back to town council on Nov. 18 that as long as someone "drives a nail," there is no enforcement available.
It is already known Christiansburg Town Code has not been maintained and Virginia's Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) is superior to local codes and building standards.
USBC Section 110 addresses permits and states: "It shall be the responsibility of the permit applicant to prove to the building official that authorized work includes "substantive progress" characterized by approved inspections." This includes at least one inspection within a six month period, or other evidence, that shows substantial work has been completed.
Since the town's own code is said to provide no recourse for construction equipment and material storage, or debris or these types of nuisances, it is difficult to understand then how a) building permits are even issued without payment and b) when a complaint is again lodged, said permit is finally paid for many months later and becomes active, per the town manager.
One would think "no pay, no permit" would be the customary business practice for the town. It is even more difficult to understand why "one nail" being hammered is interpreted by the town as substantial work.
There have been occasions where "construction material storage" has been perceived to be junk or debris, with the Planning Commission deeming such sites in violation of zoning and instructing the town manager and attorney to immediately bring the property into compliance. Examples may be found in a review of planning or council minutes.
Town Council needs to hammer this, getting more facts about how interpretation for something they are ultimately responsible for is being applied, whether this be relative to building permits, sign permits, hiring practices, FOIA or other administrative functions.