|
August 22_ 1972
<br />
<br /> I discussed this matter with personnel in three city office - Planning, Office of the
<br />City Attorney and the Building Inspector - after the concrete footings had been poured but
<br />before the building was erected. I was informed that: (1) the permit was issued in
<br />accordance with city ordinances; (2) that the permit was TEMPORARY; and (3) the builder
<br />(Merritt Corp.) had agreed to provide some kind of screen (e.g. shrubs, bushes, etc.) around
<br />the building to make it less objectionable. In this connection, it will be noted that the
<br />permit does not specify that it is "temporary"; however, I was told that by subsequent corre-
<br />sp6hdence with the builder the city had documented the fact that the permit was issued for a
<br />period of one year at which time the building will be removed. In this connection, I have
<br />been informed that this building was in its previous location in Merrifields for a period of
<br />5 to 6 years.
<br />
<br /> I think you will agree with me that a building, as described above, is not a temporary
<br />building and should be subject to zoning laws if the proposed action would affect other pro-
<br />perty owners, i.e. other than the butder. Citizens affected by such a proposed action
<br />should have an opportunity to set forth objections prior to the issuance of a building permit.
<br />and if the objections are valid the permit should not beiissued. In the present case, the
<br />builder had 100 or more lots to which the 5uilding could be moved. However, the two lots he
<br />selected for this purpose resulted in maximum adverse impact on Edgefield residents and mini-
<br />mum adverse affect on Merrifields residents.
<br />
<br /> Accordingly, I urge the City Council to: (1) if the permit was in fact issued {n ac-
<br />cordance with City ordinances, that these ordinances be revised as appropriate to prevent
<br />situations, such as that described above, from happening in the future; and (2) that re-
<br />sponsible parties in the City Government be instrusted to see that the building referred to
<br />above is removed from its present location in one year and that no extensions are granted.
<br />This will at least minimize the length of time that my property and that of my "neighbors"
<br />on Craneybrook Lane - will be adversely affected."
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Johnson, to be received as information.
<br />
<br /> Substitute motion of Mr.
<br />with a report to be afforded
<br />following vote:
<br />
<br />Hollsy and seconded by Mr. to be referred to the City ManaBer
<br />the Council at its next regular meeting, was adopted by the
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johns6n, King, Smith, IYentz, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 72-359 ~
<br /> T~.~e following letter received from Douglas B. Fugate, Chairman, Elizabeth River
<br />Tunnel Commission, was read:
<br />
<br /> "I acknowledge resolution of the Portsmouth City Council of August 8,
<br />reduction of tunnel fares for students residing in Suffolk and Nansemond.
<br />bring this to the Elizabeth River Tunnel Commission at its next meeting."
<br />
<br />1972 recommending
<br />I will be glad to
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. King and seconde by Mr. Smith, to be received as information, was adopted
<br />by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 72-360 The following letter received from L. E. Vann, President, Portsmouth/Chesapeake
<br />Human Relations Council, was read:
<br />
<br /> "I wish to address Council at the next megula~ m~eting, August 22, 1972, to apprise you
<br />of the need to take action in areas where racial discrimination appears rampant in Portsmouth
<br />
<br />Mr. Vann spoke.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Holley and seconded by Mr. Smith that a copy of CAC rules to be sent to
<br />Mr. Vann, was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, ~Tantz, Barnes
<br />~ays: None
<br />
<br /> 72-351 - Motion of Mr. ~entz and seconded by Mr. King, that the subject of the Develop-
<br />ment of Church~snd area be referred to a conference as soon as possible to get all persons
<br />up-to-date; to include all charts as previously presented and that a conference prior to the
<br />next Planning Commission public hearing be held by City Council, was adopted by the following
<br />vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 72-362 - Motion of Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Smith that a Commissio~of Council
<br />be formed to organize move for Churchland Bridge expansion, was adopted by the following vote
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Johmson, meeting adjourned at 9:32 P.M.
<br />
<br />APPROVED
<br />
<br />Mayor
<br />
<br />City Clerk
<br />
<br />
<br />
|