MINUTES 1953 (through AUG 31) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

459 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, THAT THE SECTION OF ROY STREET WHICH LIES BETWEEN THE INTERSECTIONS OF ROY STREET WITH FARISH MATTER RE: STREET (SOMETIMES CALLED HANOVER STREET) AND WITH CHERRY AVENUE, BE AND THE SAME IS CLOSING OF ROY STREET HEREBY CLOSED AND VACATED, THE LAND INCLUDED IN SUCH PORTION OF ROY STREET REVERTING TO THE ABUTTING OWNERS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SAME, AS THEIR INTERESTS MAY APPEAR OF RECORD. THE PORTION OF ROY STREET HEREBY CLOSED AND VACATED IS 40 FEET IN WIDTH AND IS FULLY SET FORTH ON A REVISED PLAT OF A PORTION OF THE FIFE ESTATE RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COURT OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE IN D. B. 110 P. 50. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF THE COUNCIL BE AND HE HEREBY IS DIRECTED TO RECORD IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COURT OF THE CITY OF 6HARLOTTESVILLE A DULY ATTESTED COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION. MR. FORBES PRESENTED A REQUEST OF MR. J. O. WHITT FOR REFUND OF LICENSE TAX ON A BUSINESS FOR WHICH A LICENSE WAS SECURED, BUT WHICH WAS NEVER IN REFUND LICENSE TAX J. D. WHITT APPROVED OPERATION. 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 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 CLAIM AGAINST DOG FUND. FUND OF JOE DUFF FOR $2.00 WAS ORDERED PAID. 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 GENTLEMEN: 0 ATTORNEY WITH RESPECT TO THE OPERATION OF A NURSING HOME AT 1107 WERTLAND STREET, SEVERAL WEEKS AGO MR. FORBES REQUESTED THAT i FURNISH AN OPINION ON WHETHER THE CITY COULD ENFORCE AN ORDINANCE AGAINST OWNERS OF DOMESTICATED RABBITS AND POULTRY REQUIRING THEM BY SOME METHOD TO PROTECT SUCH DOMESTICATED RABBITS AND POULTRY FROM DOGS. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT REPORT FROM THE PURPOSE OF AN ORDINANCE OF THIS TYPE WOULD BE TO REQUIRE SUCH PERSONS CITY ATTORNEY RE: TO DO MORE THAN THEY ARE NOW DOING FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR RABBITS AND OPINION ON ORDINANCE POULTRY BEFORE APPLYING TO THE COUNCIL FOR REIMBURSEMENT AFTER DESTRUCTION AGAINST OWNERS OF BY DOGS, RABBITS AND POULTRY PROTECTING MORE SECTION 29 - 202, CODE OF VIRGINIA PROVIDES THAT: SECURELY ANIMALS FROM DOGS. ~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...„ 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 IS 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. JSBJR:ALL CITY ATTORNEY A COMMUNICATION UNDER DATE OF MARCH 9, 1953, FROM THE COMMONWEALTH'S 0 ATTORNEY WITH RESPECT TO THE OPERATION OF A NURSING HOME AT 1107 WERTLAND STREET,