A public hearing on amending the county litter control ordinance was held during Monday evening’s Vance County Board of Commissioners meeting.
Ken Krulik of Vance County’s Planning and Development/Code Enforcement Department presented to the board and to the public proposed changes in civil penalties for littering. Besides an increase in civil penalties, the amended ordinance provides for violators to pay cleanup costs when littering creates an environmental hazard. Amended fines range from $50 for a first offence when the littering is accidental, noncommercial and does not create an environmental hazard to $750 plus cleanup costs when the offense is willful, creates an environmental hazard, is commercial and is a repeat offense.
The ordinance provides for the litter control officer to write citations for civil violations. The current county litter control officer is Tom Anderson. Law enforcement officers may write civil or criminal citations, but not both at the same time.
During the discussion, Commissioner Wilbur Boyd suggested that the county may wish to amend the ordinance in the future so that costs for nonenvironmental cleanup hazards are assessed against violators as well.
County Manager Jerry Ayscue took the opportunity to inform the commissioners that the Vance County Sheriff’s Office has been very cooperative with the effort regarding the ordinance.
Krulik reported that the ordinance is supported by the Clean Up Henderson Committee.
Anne Bunch and Marian Perry, who head the Vance County Appearance Commission, spoke in favor of the amended ordinance. Perry told the commissioners, “We will have the opportunity to see a small change.”
Lewis Edwards of 2412 Oxford Road told the board that it was embarrassing to return to Vance County from places like Raleigh. He suggested that the county use cameras in places where habitual littering takes place.
“We need to send a message to the general population that we’re not joking,” he told the board.
Bill Edwards, the president of the Henderson-Vance County Chamber of Commerce, reported that business is enthusiastic about the ordinance. He asked Krulik whether there was an amount of time between offenses when a subsequent office might not count as a second offense. Krulik responded that there was no such time frame.
When Perry asked Krulik about pursuing repeat offenders, Krulik responded that liens could be placed on the property of chronic litterers.
The board unanimously approved the amended ordinance after the public hearing.