|
April 25~ 1972
<br />
<br />would be required to provide traffic control devices. I find such a suggestion to be ap-
<br />propriate and, therefore, recommend that you amend on final reading Paragraph t of the pro-
<br />posed amendment by adding thereto wording (which is underline~ as follows:
<br />
<br />'I. Necessary traffic control devices, including but not limited to traffic
<br />signs which are required within_ the subdivision or'adjacent thereto and which
<br />are approved by the T~affic Bngineer, shall be installed. The cost thereof, or
<br />so much thereof as the City shall direct, shall be paid by the subdivider.''
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Raymond Smith and seconded by Mr. King to incorporate the~amendment as
<br />recommended by the City Attorney, the ordinance was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br />Nays: Holley
<br />
<br /> 72-120 - The following ordinance, approved at the Public Hearing
<br />and read:
<br />
<br /> t'ZONING AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Z 72-4"
<br />
<br />Meeting, was taken up
<br />
<br />~he ~otl~wang lp~ler received from Mrs. Mary Denaro, 4525 Glencove Drive, was road:
<br />
<br />"I would like to call to your attention the inequality of two of yor recent votes.
<br />
<br /> First, yoy refused to rezone a property on County
<br />by NARCO. You sighted as your reason for not rezoning
<br />create spot zoning.
<br />
<br />Street as that it could be used
<br />this property as being that i would
<br />
<br /> Secondly, you voted to spot zone a property in Chu¢chland, near
<br />highrise apartments can be built. ~-~e traffic problems in this area
<br />iny and you have voted to make this situation muc worse!
<br />
<br />River Shore, so that
<br />are already overwhelm-
<br />
<br /> How can you spot zone in one spot and refuse to in another?
<br />voted against the-~vious wishes of the local tax payers.
<br />
<br />In both cases, you have
<br />
<br /> One can only surmise that there was financial persuasion used to obtain the afore-
<br />mentioned votes. I certainly hope that this is not the case. Howe~er, you must admit that
<br />you revarsed yourselves in a very short period. Both questions were decided against the
<br />sentiment of large-segments of the voting public and in favor of'apparently politically
<br />powerful individuals. Is something rotten in Denmark? (Portsmouth?)."
<br />
<br /> The following letter received from Mr. W. T. H. Galliford, Jr., 4651 Rivershore Road,
<br />was read:
<br />
<br /> "This is to request that the following named residents of the City of Portsmouth be
<br />permitted to appear before City Council on April 25, 1972, for the purpose of opposing the
<br />re-zoning request of the Churchland Associates for the former Trotman Farm:
<br />
<br />W. T. H. Galliford, Jr.
<br />Don Comer
<br />Peter Eustis
<br />Jerome Schoenfeld, DDS
<br />John W. Hollowell
<br />Carl Sears"
<br />
<br />Mr. Don Comer spoke against the rezoning.
<br />
<br /> ~tem 72-159,- Letter received from Mr. Douglas B. Fugate, Commissioner, Department of
<br />Highways, was read:
<br />
<br /> "It is a pleasure to reply to your letter of April 14, 1972. However, I am afraid that
<br />I have no information regarding the Craney ~sland crossing. We do have a location from
<br />Bowe~s Hill to Route 17, and possibly this location will be used as part of the overall
<br />development. However, the consulting engineers are now studying ail possibilities for the
<br />complete location between 1-64 in Hampton and Bowers Hill, and their recommendation will not
<br />be available until a formal report is submitted some months from~now.
<br />
<br /> When this information is available, the Commission will, of course, consult with local
<br />officials and hole the necessary public hearings before deciding on a ~efinite location."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. King and seconded by Mr. Irvine Smith, the ordinance was adopted, and by
<br />the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner
<br />Nays: Holley, Barnes
<br />
<br /> 72-120 - The following ordinance approved at ~he Public Hearing Meeting, was taken up
<br />and read:
<br />
<br />"ZONING AMENDMHNT ORDINANCE Z 72-5-
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr, Raymond Smith and seconded by Mr. Johnson, tho ordinance was adopted, and
<br />by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Johnson, ~ing, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner
<br />Nays: Holley, Barnes
<br />
<br />
<br />
|