1992-02-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

70 therefore would oppose the appropriation. Rev. Edwards expressed agreement with Mr. Toscano. The $23,632.50 appropriation for staff bonuses at the Joint Security Complex which was offered at the January 21st meeting was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Vandever, Ms. Waters. Noes: Rev. Edwards and Mr. Toscano. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $23,632.50 is hereby appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund as the City's share of salary bonuses for the staff of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex. This appropriation is conditioned upon Albemarle County approving a similar appropriation for its share of the proposed bonus program. APPROPRIATION: (2nd reading) $25,255 - JUVENILE DETENTION HOME INCREASE The ~25,255 appropriation for the Juvenile Detention Home increase which was offered at the January 21st meeting was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Rev. Edwards, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Toscano, Mr. Vandever, Ms. Waters. Noes: None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $25,255.00 is hereby appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund to the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home as the City of Charlottesville's share (40.26%) of increased assessments for the third and fourth quarters of fiscal year 1991-92. Such increase was necessary because of decreasing non-participant revenue and increased staffing costs. RESOLUTION: GRANTING SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND SORORITY AT 123 CHANCELLOR STREET Mr. Satyendra Huja, Director of Community Development, stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the special permit for the following reasons: 1) It is in harmony with the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) It will not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding area if conditions are met; 3) The proposed setback modification is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended; and 4) The use is compatible with surrounding uses. Mr. Toscano questioned how the limit on the number of meal participants was reached and how this restriction would be monitored. Mr. Huja replied that the owner of the building certifies that the regulations are complied with. Ms. Waters stated that she felt it was unclear as to why the meal participants should be restricted to 38, noting that the area surrounding the sorority is largely fraternity use and therefore she was inclined to allow the number of meal participants that the building can accommodate. Mr. Doug Gilpin, architect for the sorority, stated that the limit of 38 had been reached since that is the number of members currently signed up for the meal plan, and suggested that the limit be increased to 45 which is the number of members allowed by the sorority's charter. Ms. Waters questioned whether requiring a replacement tree on the property would provide too much shade for the neighbor's yard but Mr. Huja replied that it would not.