Big Sandy Asks Court to Compel Deed Issuance

  An answer filed in Buchanan Circuit Court to a law suit initiated by the county seeking an injunction and eviction of the Big Sandy Soil and Water Conservation District from county property at Hurley, asks the court to dismiss the complaint and enter an order finding Big Sandy is "the lawful owner of the property."
  A counterclaim is also made a part of the answer filed in Buchanan Circuit Court Monday.
  The counterclaim asks the court to require the county to convey the property identified in a March 2002 resolution to Big Sandy and further that the soil and water conservation district be reimbursed its costs, expense and attorney fees. It further asks that the court declare a July 9, 2002 resolution and a March 23, 2006 resolution subsequently adopted by the board to be of no force and effect.
  The counterclaim notes that on March 11, 2002, following an advertisement and public hearing, the Buchanan County Board of Supervisors conveyed the property in question to Big Sandy. Further, the county allegedly amended or changed that resolution through a second resolution agreed to July 9, 2002, which was allegedly agreed to without the benefit of any public notice or public hearing.
  It goes on to allege that after the March 2002 resolution was adopted and "in anticipation of the county honoring its obligations . . . the Conservation District occupied the property and expended funds in improvement thereof to use and utilize the property."
  Further, it noted the county has given Big Sandy and Big Sandy has accepted monies to purchase an office structure which was then placed on the property and "in reliance upon the resolutions adopted by the county, the Conservation District has expended substantial sums of money for the improvement of the property."
  It goes on to allege the county has received substantial benefit and consideration as a result of Big Sandy’s presence on the property.
  The counterclaim takes issue with the March 2006 resolution which purports to relieve the county from its contractual obligation to convey the property to Big Sandy.

For more of the story, see the print edition of the Mountaineer, on sale at newsstands now.  For more information on how to subscribe to the Mountaineer, call 276-935-2123 today.

Town Ordinance Requires Owners to Keep Dogs Under Control
Speaker Says New Rules Should Apply to Cats Too

   An ordinance requiring dog owners in the Town of Grundy to keep their pets under control was unanimously approved by Grundy Town Council last week.
  The long-discussed town noise ordinance was also approved after several recent revisions were made to the proposal.
  The newly-approved dog-control ordinance requires town residents to keep dogs they own on their property at all times, unless the dogs are “secured by a leash or led by other means of restraint not harmful to the dog, or otherwise under the direct supervision and control of [the owner].”
  The ordinance does not apply to any dog used by law-enforcement agencies, or any dog under contract by law-enforcement agencies.
  Jimmy Goff, the sole town resident who chose to speak out against the proposal at last week’s regular meeting, asked Town Council members not to pass the ordinance.
  “I really think it’s unneeded,” Goff said. “My bigger dog, I really don’t want to keep him locked up.”
  Goff expressed concern that locking up his large dog would make his property more susceptible to burglary.
  “I really wish you wouldn’t pass this law,” he said. “My dogs don’t bother anybody.”
  “I have to take exception with you,” council member Gary Prater said in response to Goff’s comments. “It’s a serious issue.”
  According to Prater, a large dog in the area Goff lives recently chased him while he was riding his bicycle.
  “The big dog was trying to bite me,” Prater said, further explaining being chased by the dog caused him to wreck.
  “My big dog don’t bite,” Goff stated. “If it did, I’d put it to sleep. I’ll fight [the ordinance] tooth and nail.”
  Goff then declared his belief that the proposed ordinance was discriminatory, based on the fact that it didn’t include cats.
  “Why not include cats?” Goff asked.
  “Well, I haven’t been chased by cats,” Prater responded.
  “I think it’s discrimination,” Goff said of not including cats in the ordinance.
  “We’ll wait until the cat files a claim and we’ll see,” Prater replied.

For more of the story, see the print edition of the Mountaineer, on sale at newsstands now.  For more information on how to subscribe to the Mountaineer, call 276-935-2123 today.