|
321
<br />
<br />June 25, 1974
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, Section 56-101 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; permits that
<br />if such local codes are in substantial conformity~with the duly adopted Uniform State
<br />Wide Building Code, the local codes may, with the concurrence of the board of State
<br />Building Code Review, remain in effect for two years from the effective date of said
<br />State Code; and
<br />
<br /> ~EREAS, the Board of State Building Code Review, granted the City of Portsmouth
<br />a one year extension of a requested two year extension of the currently effective City
<br />Building Code, Plumbing Code, Gas Code and Mechanical Code pursuant to Section 56-101
<br />of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Portsmouth deems it necessary to receive
<br />the full two year extension.
<br />
<br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia,
<br />that the Southern Standard Building Code, 1969 edition with the 1972 revision thereto,
<br />the Southern Standard Plumbing Code, 1971 edition with the 1972 revision thereto, the
<br />Southern Standard Gas Code, 1969 edition with the 1970 revision thereto, and the Southern
<br />Standard Mechanical Code, 1975 edition, are as amended and adopted by this Council
<br />in substantial conformity with the Uniform State Wide Building Code, and such being
<br />the case, the Council deems it in the best interest of the City that such codes remain
<br />in effect for two years from the effective date of the State Code so as to allow an
<br />orderly transition to said State Code.
<br />
<br /> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia, that
<br />it hereby directs the Building Official to make application to the Board of State Buildin
<br />Code Review for an additional one year extension of the above-referenced building codes
<br />so as to allow a more orderly implementation of the Uniform State Wide Building Code."
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 74-273 - The following letter received from Mrs. Miriam Haywood, 4008 WindymiIle
<br />Drive, was read:
<br />
<br /> "It has been rumored that the residents of Merrifields do not want play facilities
<br />in that area. If you will allow me a few minutes of your time I would like to prove
<br />that we, in Merrifields, do desire and need recreation facilitiss." Hands Chairman,
<br />Merrifields Garden~Club.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Haywood spoke and presented the following petition:
<br />
<br /> "We, the undersigned residents of Merrifields and registered voters, subdivision
<br />of Churchland feel there is a definite need for recreation and play facilities for boys
<br />and girls of all ages, living in our area° Signed by Courtney B. Sherril], 4029 D Cedar
<br />Lane and others" (328)
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Holley, the matter to be referred to the
<br />Recreation Commission, was adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br /> 74-274 - The following letter received from Edward Pool, President, Cradock Property
<br />Owners Assn., was read:
<br />
<br /> "At the regularly scheduled Board of Directors meeting of the Cradock Property
<br />Owners Association, held on June 18, 1974, it was voted that a letter be sent to you
<br />to enlist the support of the City regarding a situation which exists in the Cradock
<br />community. The condition has become worse lately regarding the newspaper drops in our
<br />community and others throughout our City.
<br />
<br /> When the paper carriers fold their papers, they leave wiring used to bale the papers
<br />and wrappers, also excess papers become strewn over street corners, sidewalks, and are
<br />blown atop buildings. We have protested in writing to the newspapers and have had con-
<br />versations with the supervisors of the carriers, all to no avail. The newspaper contend
<br />that these carriers are independent operators and do not come uner the jurisdiction of
<br />the newspaper.
<br />
<br /> It is our understanding Portsmouth has a Littering Law and we certainly feel a situ
<br />ation of this type would be classified tas littering and, therefore, would come under the
<br />jurisdiction of the City. It would be our suggestion to eliminate individual drop points
<br />throughout our neighborhood and have one specific building used by all the carriers for
<br />Cradock area.
<br />
<br /> As you are aware, Cradock was recently declared Cradock Historic District and was
<br />placed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and has been nominated to the National Registe~
<br />of Historic Places. We feel proud and honored for t~is distinction. Our citizens have
<br />long been interested in the wellUbeing of our community and are constantly striving to
<br />upgrade it. With this in mind, we request permission for Mr. Robert Gray and Rev. C, G.
<br />Kettlewell to speak on behalf of our organization to the City Council meeting to be held
<br />on June 25, 1974."
<br />
<br />Mr. Gray spoke.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|