My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1991-01-22
Charlottesville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1991
>
1991-01-22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2001 6:34:42 PM
Creation date
12/18/2001 5:52:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Meeting Date
1/22/1991
Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
125 <br /> <br />be sent to the Governor and all members of the General <br />Assembly. - - ' <br /> <br />RESOLUTION: NOTICE RE: NEW ZONING MAP <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that the resolution, if approved, <br />would require the Department-of Community Development to <br />notify in writing all property owners who would be~affected <br />by changes in the zoning map. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters made a motion to deny the resolution, noting <br />concern that there might be complications with certain people <br />not receiving notice and adding that~.she~felt it~was better <br />to rely on two years of discussion and numerous public <br />hearings. Mr, Vandever seconded the motion to deny. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano questioned whether notices would need to be <br />mailed out a second time should substantial changes occur in <br />the zoning~map after the first mailing.- <br /> <br /> Mr. Gou!dman replied that while it is not legally <br />required that any notices be mailed, he would legally advise <br />that second notices be sent should initial notices be sent <br />and substantial changes were made. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated that she felt mailing a general <br />notice of zoning changes would be good public policy. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano stated that he would support mailing the <br />notices and also mailing second notices should substantial <br />changes be made following the first notice. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he understood that mailing such <br />notices seemed to open the door to technical challenges in <br />other communities. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman advised that sending a very generic letter <br />would be the safest, but there would always be the hazard <br />that someone would not receive one. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that her decision not to support <br />sending individual notices was based on the fact that the <br />zoning changes were community decisions, not iparcel by,parcel <br />decisions. <br /> <br /> Ms. Betty Siegner, Planning Commission member, expressed <br />concern about the cost of mailing such notices. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano stated that he felt'Council needed to watch <br />out for people who do not normally get involved in such a <br />process. - <br /> <br /> The resolution was denied by the following vote. Ayes: <br />Rev. Edwards, Mr. Vandever, Ms. Waters. Noes: Ms. Slaughter <br />and Mr. Toscano. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION: AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES TO RIVANNA SOLID <br />WASTE AUTHORITY <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix explained that the resolution woUld <br />authorize the transfer of City employees to the Rivanna <br />Solid Waste Authority and would transfer funds from the <br />City's Retirement fund in order to buy into the Virginia <br />Retirement System, the plan used by the Authority. <br /> <br /> On motion by Mr. Toscano, seconded by Ms. Waters,,the <br />resolution authorizing the transfer of employees to the <br />Rivanna Solid Waste Authority was unanimously approved by <br />Council. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.