Laserfiche WebLink
12 <br /> <br />co-adoption of gay and lesbian partners; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, Va. Code {}20-45.3 takes Virginia out of the mainstream of the laws <br />of the other 49 states of the union; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the law will have negative consequences for Virginia, including loss <br />of tourism dollars and the inability to recruit major industrial and business concerns to the <br />Commonwealth; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the passage and codification of HB 751 is a reactionary and radical <br />step backward that entangles the Commonwealth of Virginia in needless and expensive <br />litigation; <br /> <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Charlottesville City Council <br />calls upon the General Assembly and especially our area legislative delegation to amend <br />or repeal Va. Code {}20-45.3 in the 2005 session of the General Assembly. <br /> <br />ORDINANCE: CLOSING 10TM STREET ALLEY (2nd reading) <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said that the ordinance reflects the ordinance as moved and seconded <br />on first reading, and requires a payment of $4,038.30. He said he appreciates Council's <br />concerns about staff time, but feels that the more appropriate mechanism for payment is <br />through the applicant fee rather than charging an amount for an interest the City does not <br />have in the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he thinks the City should recoup the cost for staff time, but said he <br />would support reducing the fee in exchange for longer term maintenance of the alley. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he thinks the ordinance is a reasonable compromise, and <br />although the City does not have direct title, there is a cloud over the title and removing <br />that usually results in an exchange of money. Mr. Caravati made a motion to amend the <br />ordinance to extend the maintenance requirement to ten years and add a requirement that <br />the owners in perpetuity never put a mechanical device to block the alley. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling offered a friendly amendment, substituting any device rather than <br />mechanical device, and Mr. Caravati accepted the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Schilling seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown reminded Council that the applicant has gotten a fully executed deed <br />of easement that precludes any blockage not consented to by owners as directed by the <br />Planning Commission, and this motion will require a new deed to be signed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said it is his understanding that the neighbors will readily sign a new <br />deed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he supports the desire to extend the maintenance. He said this is <br />effectively a quitclaim, and if it was not for the work done by the City Attorney' s office, <br />the applicant would be expected to pay full price for the property. In fairness he <br />supported adjusting the charge, and reducing it to $1,000 or $2,000. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he appreciates Mr. Lynch's argument, but he will not change his <br />motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch asked if the applicant is willing to extend the maintenance to ten years. <br /> <br /> Ms. Terra Boyd, counsel to the applicant, said that the applicant is happy to <br />consider extending the maintenance to ten years. She said it took considerable effort to <br />have the deed signed by the eight neighbors, and she pointed out that it was the neighbors <br />who proposed the five year maintenance agreement. <br /> <br /> <br />