|
April 25, 1972
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Irvine Smith and seconded by Mr, Raymond Smith, to concur with the re-
<br />commendation of the City Manager, was adopted by the following vo~e:
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br /> Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 72'151 - "I submit the attached letter from the City Assessor and concur that
<br />the refUn~ be granted."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Irvine Smith and seconded by Mr. Raymond Smith, request of the City
<br />Assessor to refund to Gary L. ~ Jean B. Smith, 4217 Summerset Drive, in the amouR~ Of
<br />$85.19, was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br /> Nays: Holley
<br />
<br /> 72-1S2 "At the last Council meeting, I was requested to make a report on the
<br />of Mr. Geo,.ge R. Walker concerning the third copy of the real estate assessment appeal
<br />form being filed with the Clerk of the Hustings Court.
<br />
<br /> I have discussed this matter with the City Assessor's office and~the Judge of the
<br />Hustings Court. The Assessor's office advises me that they only receive one copy of the
<br />assessment appeal from the Board of Equalization and have no knowledge Of the disposition
<br />of the other two copies, other than one of the two going to the taxpayer.
<br />
<br /> In my discussion with Judge McMurran, he advised me there is no legal requirement
<br />to file a copy in the Court and further feels there is no needfor a copy to be placed
<br />in the Clerk of the Court's office.
<br />
<br />request
<br />
<br /> There is also attached a copy of a letter received from Mr. Walker which refers to
<br />the current forms as being handled by the Equalization Board. Mr. Walker's letter refers
<br />to "the failure to take timely action" and the appeal sessions being completed. I am advise~
<br />that the Equalization Board has not forwarded any copies of assessment appeals to the City
<br />Assessor to date; therefore, any aCtiOn is not too late.
<br /> _
<br /> By law the City Assessor is required to Change his land books to any correction the
<br />Equalization Board may make, The City CoUncil can Only instruct the City Assessor to assessI
<br />property in accordance with the law and there is no provision for the City Council to instru¢~
<br />th~h~i~sA~sss~oto file a copy of the assessment appeal in the Court of Hustings.
<br />
<br /> The Equalization Board is appointed by the Judge of the Hustings Court and the Board
<br />works under his direction. Any action requiring the Equalization Board to file a copy of
<br />the asseslsment appeal with the Clerk of the Hustings Court would have to come from the Judge."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Irvine Smith and seconded by Mr. Turner, to be received as information
<br />and a copy to be sent to Mr. Walker, was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br /> Nays: None
<br />
<br />UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
<br />
<br /> 72-118 - The following ordinance, approved at P~li~.~M~n~gg~vaeeti~g~ wFsi~Rk~n.~dP and
<br />read:
<br /> "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH,
<br /> VIRGINIA, 1961, BY ADDING THERETO A NEW ARTICLE NIIMBERED SA, CONSIST~G
<br /> OF SECTIONS SA-1 THROUGH 5A-16, PERTAINING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
<br /> IN AREAS ZONED RESIDENTIAL."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. King and seconded by Mr. Raymond Smith, the ordinance was adOpted,
<br />an by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 72-119 - The following ordinance, approved at P~tic Hearing meeting, was taken up and
<br />read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 32-19 OF THE CODE
<br />VIRGINIA, 1961, SUCH SECTION BEING A PART OF THE
<br />THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH PERTAINING TO UTILITY AND
<br />QUIRED IN SUBDIVISIONS."
<br />
<br />OF THE CITY OF P.ORTSMOUTH,
<br />SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF
<br />STREET IMPROVEMENTS RE-
<br />
<br />The following letter from the City Attorney was read:
<br />
<br /> "At your bimonthly Zoning Meeting of April 10, 1972, you directed me to report back
<br />to you concerning the above-referenced item which is a proposed amendment to ~he Subdivision
<br />Ordinance of the City of Portsmouth. The sense yf yomr motion was that I consider various
<br />suggestions raised at the Public Hearing concerning said proposed amendment and make any
<br />recommendations thereon. I considered such suggestions and find that one made by Mr. Benja-
<br />min Levy to be a valid improvement. Mr. Levy suggested that we incorporat~oin Paragraph I'
<br />of the proposed~amendment clarifying language which would limit the area for which develop~r~
<br />
<br />
<br />
|