Minutes 04/28/1964 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

56 TUESDAY APRIL 28, 1964 October 10, 1961 (re: Lanier Farm, Inc.) All property owned by Lanier Farm, Inc., between Mulberry Creek on the south and the Old Danville Road on the north and to the corporate limits of the City, consisting of some 369 acres. February 13, 1962 (re: Whittle Trust) Property owned by the Whittle Family Irrevocable Trust, consisting of some 200 acres of land located on and near Mulberry Road outside the City's southeast corporate limits, part of which property !lis scheduled for development under a subdivision development contract with the City, dated September 25, 1961.11 Messrs. Joyce and Frith both requested Council to enter into subject annexation proceedings as an intervener; however, Council expressed the opinion that, inasmuch as the City's annexation petition and ordinance adopted by Council May 4, 1962, included the areas sought to be annexed by Lanier Farm, Inc., and by the Whittle Trust, the City is already on record before the court as being of the opinion that such areas ought to be incorporated into the City and, furthermore, that the annexation petitions filed by these two petitioners did within themselves, by suit and service, make the City a party (or defendant) to the proceedings and thereby the City is without prerogative in a decision as to whether to be brought into the suits, except in the mode of answering any other actions. It waS the stated concensus of Council that it continues of the opinion that these territories, as encompassed in the two pending petitions and as included in the City's 1962 petition (in which the City continues to have interest), should be incorporated into the City and that the Council should so indicate to the annexation court. Meanwhile, some question arose among members of Council as to what the word or term lIintervener" implies or constitutes, particularly as it might apply to the City's position or rights with respect to annexation proceedings instituted, past or future, by the City or other parties and with respect to any mocatorim placed on annexation proceedings in Virginia by the Virginia General Assembly. Upon motion, which was duly seconded, and with Councilmen Stone and Boaz voting against the motion because of the absence of a definitive ruling on both the word lIintervenerll and the City's position as would or would not be established with respect to other annexation proceedings, past or future,--the record showing that Councilmen Stone and Boaz, as well as