|
December 7. 1971
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Turner and seconded by Mr. Johnson, the letter was received with the
<br />appropriate resolution of appreciation to be extended, also to refer tke vacancy to a co~ferenc
<br />was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 71-560 - On motion of Mr. Irvine Smith and seconded by Mr. Turner, the floor was opened
<br />for elections to boards and commissions, was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymcnd Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />Board of Adjustments & Appeals
<br />
<br />Mr. Turner nominated Mr. Richard A. Bolden.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Raymond moved nominations be closed, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Bolden was
<br />elected to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, for an unexpired term, expiring September 1,
<br />1973, was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />Museum and Fine Arts Commission
<br />
<br />Mr. Raymond Smith nominated Mrs. Robert W. Wentz, Jr.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Turner moved that nominations be closed, seconded by Mr. King,
<br />elected to the Museum and Fine Arts Commission for a term of one year,
<br />1972, was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />and Mrs. Wentz was
<br />expiring November 1,
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br /> Nays: None
<br />
<br />Deputy City Clerk
<br />
<br />Mr. Raymond Smith nominated Mrs. Corinna Jeffreys.
<br />
<br />Being the~.only selection of the entire Council, approval was unanimous.
<br />
<br /> 71-561 The following letter r~ceived from Mr. Clinton A. Butler, Chairman, Park View
<br />Citizens Committee, was read:
<br />
<br /> "The workable program for Park View has been reviewed and acted upon by this Committee.
<br />On November 29, 1971, the following resolution, concerning our petition and the workable
<br />program, was unanimously adopted, and I request that Fou inform the Council of our decision.
<br />
<br />'To accept the workable plan, as presented, for a period
<br />taking no further action on the petition until November
<br />sufficient progress will be made. Adopted: November 29,
<br />
<br />of twelve months;
<br />28, 1971, providing
<br />1971'
<br />
<br /> Since our meeting of Nov. 29 had an equal representation of Core Area residents it was
<br />necessary to take two votes on the resolution. The resolution as voted on by Project Area
<br />Committee Members only was unanimously adopted; therefore, it is official action of the Park
<br />View Citizens Committee. The resolution as voted on by the entire attendance at the meeting
<br />was also unanimously adopted; therefore, it reflects the will of Park View as a whole.
<br />
<br /> It should be noted that there is general agreement that the e~forcement of the new hous-
<br />ing ordinance will bear heavily on the success of the Park View Conservation Project.
<br />
<br /> I want to thank you and the eintire City Council for the efforts that you have made in
<br />our behalf.Tmeyh are sincerely appreciated by the people of Park View."
<br />
<br /> On m~tion of Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Raymond Smith to be received as information,
<br />with a copy of the letter to be forwarded to the Portsmouth Redevelopment & Housing Authority,
<br />was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 71-562 The following letter received from Mr. L. Eugene Vann, representing Brighton
<br />residents, was read:
<br />
<br /> "The residents of the Brighton section of Portsmouth oppose the request from National
<br />Investors Corporation and Chesapeake Realty C6rporation (represented by Attorney Jefferson~
<br />Brown) to rezone a ~elected area of Brighton.
<br />
<br />We opposed this request when it was presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
<br />
<br />The Harrison Ward Civic League has also opposed the rezoning request.
<br />
<br /> We feel that the present zoning, R-75,
<br />community, however, there are other factors
<br />aware of.
<br />
<br />is necessary to
<br />related to this
<br />
<br />ensure development of a solid
<br />request that council should be
<br />
<br />
<br />
|