Laserfiche WebLink
<br />')) <br />a.1l <br /> <br />TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 12, 1967 <br /> <br />interpreted by City Attorney Cubine. Meanwhile, however, pursuant to Section <br /> <br />3 of Chapter 8 of the City Charter, Council referred this petition to the <br /> <br />Planning Commission and, further, scheduled a public hearing thereon at the <br /> <br />Council's forthcoming September 26th meeting. In addition, upon being advised <br /> <br />that said Section 15.1-364 of the Virginia Code specifies an allowance--if so <br /> <br />directed by Council--of not more than ten dollars to viewers for their services <br /> <br />.",-- <br /> <br />in such cases, to be paid by the petitioners, Council directed that henceforth, <br /> <br />beginning with and including the current case or petition, viewers shall be <br /> <br />paid ten dollars ($10.00) each for their services in each such case. <br /> <br />In connection with a recent inquiry by Council as to the status of various <br /> <br />planned aLd/or proposed subdivisions, Public Works Director George W. Brown <br /> <br />presented the following written report in the form of his September 8th <br /> <br />memoranduITl to City Manager Noland, in which City Manager Noland concurred and <br /> <br />which Council accepted and approved as to recommended disposition or handling <br /> <br />of the several cases cited: <br /> <br />ReceLtly a question arose at a Council meeting as to the number of sub- <br />divisions that were in the planning or development stage at the time of <br />the Enactment of an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance dated August <br />8, 1967. A question also arose as to which subdivisions would be subject <br />to tte original ordinance as adopted December 17, 1957 and which would <br />be subject to the ordinance as amended. I would offer the following for <br />consideration by Council with regard to this matter: <br /> <br />1. The agreement between P. H. Fussell Construction Corporation and the <br />City dated October 10, 1966, covering the development of Candlewyck <br />Court, is based upon the original ordinance; therefore, the required <br />improvements would be subject to that ordinance; however, as I <br />stated in my memorandum to you dated July 21, 1967, this contract <br />should be canceled because the Developer has not complied with the <br />Time-Phase requirements of this contract. <br /> <br />2. On October 16, 1957 Louis Beckner entered into an agreement with the <br />City covering the development of Meadowview Lane and a section of <br />Stonewall Court situated in the Chatham Heights area of the City. <br />Mr. Beckner1s subdivision and street dedication came about many <br />years prior to the enactment of the Subdivision Ordinance. Actually <br />