Laserfiche WebLink
55 <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said he feels that some type of pre-meeting where concerns could be <br />aired, that is not public, might have merit, but questioned the legal implications of such a <br />meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman said that any standing committee designated by Council would <br />need to be a public meeting, but a teana gotten together by the City Manager would not. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman suggested that he and Mr. Higgins draft an ordinance for Council's <br />consideration. <br /> <br />BAR Approval <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said that many times there appears to be no tying of suggestions <br />made by the BAR to the existing guidelines. Ms. Richard suggested that the BAR <br />develop a consensus at the end of the meeting about their expectations and that they be <br />rationally related to the guidelines. <br /> <br />Ms. Fenton agreed that BAR members should state their reasons for denial. <br /> <br /> Councilors agreed that the BAR should state their reasons for denial as it relates <br />to the guidelines. <br /> <br />Mr. Cox asked whether the B3~R should consider a project that is illegally buik. <br /> <br /> Mr. Higgins said that an applicant has the legal right to appeal after the City has <br />stopped the building process. <br /> <br /> Ms. Fenton said she feels that more training is important for members of the <br />BAR. <br /> <br />Neighborhood Input <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty said she would like for staff to explore expanding notification of <br />neighborhood representatives about applications to the BAR. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said an issue also to be considered is whether the BAR process <br />should be open to public, input. <br /> <br />OTHER BUSINESS <br /> <br /> On motion by Mr. Caravati, seconded by Ms. Richards, Council voted (Ayes: Mr. <br />Caravati, Mr. Cox, Ms. Daugherty, Ms. Richards, Mr. Toscano. Noes: None.) to meet in <br />executive session for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff <br />members, consultants or attorneys, pertaining too actual or probable litigation, or other <br />specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel, all as authorized <br />by Section 2.1-344(A)(7) of the Virginia Code. Two separate matters will be discussed <br />under this category. <br /> <br /> Council reconvened in open session and, on motion by Ms. Richards, seconded <br />by Mr. Toscano, certified (Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Ms. Daugherty, Ms. Richards, <br />Mr. Toscano. Noes: None) that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public <br />business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law <br />were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and <br />(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the <br />executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Council. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION: AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF LAWSUIT RELATING TO <br />REPAIR. OF LOCUST AVENUE BRIDGE <br /> <br /> On motion by Mr. Caravati, seconded by Mr. Toscano, the resolution authorizing <br />settlement of a la~vsuit filed by the City relating to repair of the Locust Avenue bridge <br /> <br /> <br />