Laserfiche WebLink
235 <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE: CONvv~YANCE TO CURE <br />ENCROACHMENT BY HOUSE ON HINTON AVENUE <br /> <br /> Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney, said that a house encroaches into lhe street <br />on Hinton Avenue and the owners have asked the City to sell them the land to cure the <br />situation <br /> <br />The public hearing was opened. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hannah Monroe, owner of the house which encroaches, asked Council to <br />support the ordinance. <br /> <br />The public hearing was closed. <br /> <br /> On motion by Mr. Toscano, seconded by Mr. Caravati, the ordinance entitled <br />"AN ORDINANCE QUITCLAIMING THE CITY'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF <br />RIGHT-OF-WAY ON HINTON AVENUE" was offered and carded over to the next <br />meeting for consideration. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING/ORI)INANCE:- QUITCLAIM GAS EASEMENT TO VIRGFNIA <br />DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (STILL MEADOW SUBDIVISION) <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman said that once streets have had utilities installed and are complete, <br />they are transferred to the VDOT. <br /> <br /> Responding to questions from Ms. Richards, Mr. Gouldman said that quitclaiming <br />the gas easement to VDOT does not change the City's responsibility for the gas lines, but <br />said if they are damaged by VDOT then VDOT is responsible. <br /> <br /> The public hearing was opened, but as there were no speakers the public hearing <br />was closed. <br /> <br /> On motion by Mr. Toscano, seconded by Mr. Caravati, the ordinance entitled <br />"AN ORDINANCE TO QUITCLAIM NATURAL GAS LINES LOCATED IN <br />CERTAIN ROADWAYS FN STILL MEADOW SUBDIVISION IN ALBEMARLE <br />COUNTY TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION" was offered <br />and carried over to the next meeting for consideration. <br /> <br />APPEAL: DECISION OF BOARD OF AI~,CHITTECTURAL REVIEW RE: <br />DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE AT 409 RIDGE STREET <br /> <br /> Ms. Joan Fenton, Chair of the Board of Architectural Review, said the issue <br />before Council is whether to approve a demolition that has already occurred. Ms. Fenton <br />said the new owner tmknowingby tore down the historic cottage, which was in a state of <br />repair, but it had never been proven that it could not be repaired. Ms. Fenton said the <br />cottage was built in 1842 and met all the criteria for historic protection, tn the spring of <br />1999 the previous owner was told by the City to repair the cottage, which was in disrepair <br />by neglect. Ms. Fenton said she feels this is a very sigrdficant issue and urged Cout~il to <br />deny the appeal. <br /> <br />Mr. Cox made a motion to deny the appeal and Mr. Caravati seconded the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Gouldman provided new resolutions for Council's consideration. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox withdrew his original motion and made amotion to approve the <br />resolution presented by Mr, Gouldman denying the appeal and the demolition request. <br />Mr. Caravati seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said it is important for people to understand how Council can deny <br />demolition for something that has already been demolished. Mr. Toscano said the BAR <br />and Council are charged to review the request as if the building is still there and <br /> <br /> <br />