Minutes 01/11/1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

113 January 11, 1977 Motion of Mr. Oast and seconded by M~.~ll~y, that the transfer of $5,000 be granted as ~ecommended, was adopted by 3-1(Etliott-Nay) voFe. 76-523 The following©ordinance approved on first reading at the called meeting of December 22, 1976, was taken up and read: "AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $540,SS0.00 PROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND POR CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF DRAINAGE, STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVE- MENTS IN MT. HERMON." On motion of Mr. Oast and secondedi~by Mr. Holley, the ordinance was adopted, and by the following vote: Ayes: Elliott, Holley, Oast, Davis Nays: None The following reports from the City Manager were presented: 77-2 - "Consideration of an ordinance establishing a central absentee voter electoral district at the main public library on Court Street. The Portsmouth Electoral Board has requested an absentee voter electoral district be established for the purpose of permitting tabulation of absentee ballots at a central locatio~ This will eliminate the laborious and time-consuming task of assigning absentee ballots to the individual's voting precinct. A copy of the letter from the Electoral Board requesting this change is attached for your information. The City Manager recommends adoption." On motion of Mr. Elliott and seconded by Mr. Holley, the following ordinance was adopted on ~i~st andI final r~ai~n~:, and by the following vote: "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1973, BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 9-53, PERTAINING TO A CENTRAL ABSENTEE VOTER ELECTION PRECINCT." Ayes: Elliott, Holley, Oast, Davis Nays: None 77-3 - "Consideration of an ordinance to close a portion Of Douglas Avenue and a portion of Primrose Street. The Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority has applied to close a portion of Douglas Avenue and Primrose Street. A resolution appointing viewers was adopted on November 23, 1976. A map and the viewers' report indicating no objection is attached for your infor- mation. The City Manager recommends adoption." On motion of Mr. Elliott and seconded by Mr. Holley, the following ordinance was adopted o~ ~i~s~-a~:~n~i.~e~ding~. and by the .ollow~ng vote: "AN ORDINANCE CLOSING THE EOLLOWING STREETS: PARCEL I, A PORTION OF DOUGLAS AVENUE, PARCEL-II, A PORTION OF PRIMROSE STREET (S-76-28 ~ 29).'~ Ayes: Elliott, Holley, Oast, Davis Nays: None 77-4 - "Consideration of a resolution granting a revokable permit to the developer of th~ sub-division abutting a portion of a City reservoir in the City of Suffolk. The developer of a sub-division abutting Lake Speight in the City of Suffolk has requeste a drainage easement for storm water run-off only. This resolution will approve a revokable permit to the developer; and, will also request the City of Suffolk to adopt controls to pre- serve the quality of water supply. The City Manager recommends adoption." On mOtiOn of Mr. Oast and seconded by Mr. Holley, the following resolution was adopted, and by the following vote: "R RESOLUTION GRANTING A STORM DRAINAGE REVOCABLE PE~4IT TO THE DEVELOPER OP A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF SUFFOLK; EXPRESSING THE CONCERN OVER POLLUTION OF A WATER RESERVOIR; REQUESTING THE CITY OF SUFFOLK TO ADOPT CONTROLS WHICH WILL PRESERVE THE QUALITY OF WATER SUPPLIES; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO FORWARD THIS RESOLUTION TO THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OP SUFFOLK AND THE STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD. WHEREAS, a request for storm drainage easements has been made by developers of a sub- division which is proposed to abut Lake Speight Run, a water supply reservoir of the City; and WHEREAS, studies are now being conducted to determine the impact of storm water run- off and non-point discharges upon water quality; and WHEREAS, there exists no state regulations controlling the location of such subdiviSion; and WHEREAS, the City of Portsmouth by resolution dated March '25, 1975 requested the City of Suffolk to adopt regulations controlling hazards to water pollution of the water supply reservoir of the City of Portsmouth; and ~EREAS, the City of Suffolk has not seen fit to adopt such regulations; and