MINUTES 1953 (through AUG 31) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 "ON MOTION BY MR. WEINBERG, SECONDED BY Mr. DAVIS, A PETITION TO CLOSE ROY STREET, BETWEEN FARISH STREET (HANOVER STREET) AND CHERRY AVENUE WAS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION.„ • REPORT RE: CLOSING OF ROY STREET AT THE REGULAR. MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 10, THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THE CLOSING OF THE ABOVE STREET AND VOTED TO RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL THAT THE STREET BE CLOSED. IT WAS FELT BY THE COMMISSION THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROY STREET WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY; THAT THE INTERSECTION OF ROY STREET AND CHERRY AVENUE WOULD CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD; AND THE RESULTING TRIANGLE OF LAND WOULD BE OF NO VALUE TO THE CITY OR ITS CITIZENS, YOURS TRULY, T. D. FEATHERSTON (SIGNED) T. D. FEATHERSTON TDF: SB AFTER CONSIDERATION, A MOTION BY MR. FORBES, SECONDED BY MR. DAVIS, TliAT THE ABOVE REPORT BE APPROVED AND THAT ROY STREET, BETWEEN HANOVER STREET AND CHERRY AVENUE, BE CLOSED WAS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED, MR. FORBES PRESENTED A REQUEST OF MR. J. D. WHITT FOR REFUND OF LICENSE TAX REFUND LICENSE TAX ON A BUSINESS FOR WHICH A LICENSE WAS SECURED, BUT WHICH WAS NEVER IN OPERATION. J. D. WHITT APPROVED ON MOTION BY MR. TEBELL, SECONDED BY MR. FORBES, THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE O THAT $25.50 BE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY APPROPRIATED TO J. D. WHITT AS REFUND OF LICENSE TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING EXPLANATION, ON MOTION BY MR. TEBELL, SECONDED BY MR. FORBES, CLAIM AGAINST THE DOG FUND CLAIM AGAINST OF .JOE DUFF FOR $2.00 WAS ORDERED PAID. DOG FUND. ON MOTION BY MR. fORBES, SECONDED BY MR. DAVIS, THE FOLLOWING REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: MARCH 16, 1953 CITY COUNCIL CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA REPORT FROM GENTLEMEN: CITY ATTORNEY RE: OPINION ON ORDINANCE SEVERAL WEEKS AGO MR. FORGES REQUESTED THAT ( FURNISH AN OPINION ON AGAINST OWNERS OF WHETHER THE CITY COULD ENFORCE AN ORDINANCE AGAINST OWNERS OF DOMESTICATED RABBITS AND POULTRY RABBITS AND POULTRY REQUIRING THEM BY SOME METHOD TO PROTECT SUCH PROTECTING MORE SECURELY DOMESTICATED RABBITS AND POULTRY FROM DOGS. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PURPOSE OF AN ORDINANCE OF THIS TYPE WOULD BE TO REQUIRE SUCH PERSONS TO DO MORE THAN THEY ARE NOW DOING FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR RABBITS AND POULTRY BEFORE APPLYING TO THE COUNCIL FOR REIMBURSEMENT AFTER DESTRUCTION BY DOGS, SECTION 29 — 202, CODE OF VIRGINIA PROVIDES THAT: „ANY PERSON TAXED BY THE -STATE WHO HAS ANY LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY KILLED OR INJURED BY ANY DOG NOT HIS OWN SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION THEREFOR AT THE ASSESSED VALUE OF SUCH LIVESTOCK AND FAIR VALUE OF UNASSESSED LAMBS OR POULTRY, AND IN ADDITION THERETO MAY RECOVER FROM THE OWNER OR CUSTODIAN OF SUCH DOG, IN AN APPROPRIATE ACTION AT LAW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ASSESSED VALUE AND THE FULL VALUE OF SUCH LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY ...p IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE POULTRY OR LIVESTOCK OWNER ACQUIRES THIS RIGHT BY BEING A TAXPAYER IN THE STATE. IF SUCH A PERSON SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM RECEIVING COMPENSATION WHICH 15 PROVIDED FOR IN THE STATE STATUTE BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH A CITY ORDINANCE, IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE INTENT OF THE STATUTE. FOR THAT REASON, I FEEL THAT AN ORDINANCE OF THE TYPE PROPOSED WOULD NOT CHANGE THE OBLIGATION OF THE COUNCIL TO AWARD PROPER COMPENSATION FOR THESE LOSSES. RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED, .JOHN S. BATTLE, JR. (SIGNED) .JOHN S. BATTLE, JR. CITY ATTORNEY • JSBJR:ALL A COMMUNICAT ION_UNDER DATE OF MARCH 91, 1953, FROM THE COMMONWEALTHos ATTORNEY WITH RESPECT TO THE OPERATION OF A NURSING HOME AT 1107 WERTLAND STREET, A MATTER