1999-11-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

236 irregardless of who owns it. Mr. Toseano said the question before the City now is what is, the remedy. Mr. Gouldman said that the City, through a Charter amendment granted by the General Assembly, can assess the owner twice the assessed price as a penalty by filing a civil suit. Mr. Caravati said he thinks the ordinance should be changed to allow a higher penalty. Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano, Mr. Gouldman said that his office would institute the civil procedure if that is what is decided. Mr. Toscano said he would like to be sure that the City Attorney's office is comfortable initiating the civil action given the complexity with the ownership and the time it will take to pursue the matter. Mr. Cox asked who would be fined, and Mr. Goutdman said that Mr. Jackson would be one defendant because he actually owned the property at the time and was the one who tore do'am the cottage. Mr, Goutdman said the seller would also be involved as he applied for the demolition. Mr. Coxsaid he thinks the seller shouM be the first one fined and Mr. Jackson should be second. Ms. Pdehards noted that the previous owner had submitted the application for demolition after he had so!d the property to Mr. Jackson. Ms. Richards said the City should recover the cost incurred to maintain the property. Mr. Toscano sugge~ed that staff Outline the issues and submit a memo to Council for their consideration. The resolution denying the appeal and the demolition of the cottage at 409 Ridge Street was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Ms. Daugherty, Ms. Richards, Mr. Toscano. Noes: None. WHEREAS, the owner of a protected property located at 409 Ridge Street (the "Applicant") has sought a certificate of appropriateness from the City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (the '~A_R") for demolition ora structure (referred to as a "cottage); and WItEREAS, the cottage had at one time been an accessory building to the principal single family residence at 409 Ridge Street, until 1994 when the principaI residence (referred to as the "Dur, kum~Spooner-Brown House") was crushed by a tree and had to be removed from the site; and WHEREAS, the cottage was demolished by the Applicant in August of 1999 without Applicant's having applied for the required certificate of appropriateness to demolish it; and WltEREAS, the Applicant appeared in front ofthe BAR on September 21, 1999 in an effort to obtain a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the cottage; however, the BAR denied his request; and WHEREAS, Applicant has appealed the BAR's decision to Council pursuant to City Code Section 34-584; and WltEREAS, this Council has examined the reIevmnt evidence in the record, including descriptions and photographs of the cottage as it existed immediately prior to its demolition, and after it was partially demolished, and has reviewed the minutes of the BAR, 1-ms heard from the Applicant, has consulted with the BAR, and has listened to presentations from persons who allege their standing to be heard;