|
Se~tamber 3B_ 1969
<br />
<br /> P?HEREAS, Alexander Land Company has made mu application pursuant to Section 4-2 of the Zoning Ordinance
<br />of 'the City of Portsmouth, 1961, for the granting of a use permit as hereinafter described; and
<br />
<br /> }f4EREAS, the applicant, the Planning Director and the City Manager have done all things required to be
<br />done in connection with said application, and the Planning Commission has recommended the granting of said
<br />use permit subject to the conditions hereinafter stated.
<br />
<br />NOW, THERHFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia;
<br />
<br />That the use for which the use permit hereinafter described is sought (1) will not adversely
<br />affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the Proposed
<br />use, (2) will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements
<br />in the neighborhood, and (S) will be in accord with the purposes of said Zoning Ordinance.
<br />
<br />That Alexander Land Company is hereby granted a use permit, subject to site plan restrictions,
<br />pursuant to Section 4-2 of said Zoning Ordinance, for the operation of an automotive service
<br />station located on the property described as follows:
<br />
<br />Beginning at a point 5 feet north of the(north right-of-way line of Airline Boulevard approximately
<br />80 feet northeast from the west property line of the Giant Open Air Market; thence northwest 60
<br />feet; thence northeast and parallel to Airline Boulevard 40 feet; thence southeast 60 feet; thence
<br />northeast and parallel to Airline Boulevard 40 feet to the point of origin."
<br />
<br />69-288 -
<br />
<br />APP,LICATION FOR VACATION of a certain recorded plat - Cavalier Estates Developmen% Corporation.
<br />
<br />Attorney Olitsky spoke.
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Johnson, the follmving ordinance was approved on first reading, without dissenting vote:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THAT PORTION OF THE PLAT OF CAVALIER b'~kNOR, SECTION 22, DESIGNATED
<br />THEP~ON AS LOTS 64 THROU~{ 76 INCLUSIVE, AND THAT PORTION OF THE PLAT OF CAVALIER
<br />SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 126A and 127, SECTION 21, DESIGNATED THEREON AS PARCEL~A~.''
<br />
<br />The following reports from the City Manager were read:
<br />
<br /> 69-289 - "We have with us tonight a group of high school students who would like to present a study
<br />they have made of the City of Portsmouth. These students are classified as Able and .Ambitious Students by
<br />the Portsmouth School System.
<br />
<br /> I have had an opportunity to make a quick review of this report and it is interesting to note the
<br />similarity between this report and the one made by Public Administration Service for the City Government.
<br />This report was made by the students without knowledge of the study and survey that the City Government was
<br />having done."
<br />
<br /> Miss Elizabeth West, Supervisor of Social Studies, under whose direction the study was made, presented
<br />the following students, who spoke on the report:
<br />
<br />Linda Yerabek, Patsy Young and Dwight Andrews
<br />
<br /> 69-290 - "At the previous meeting of the City Council, Mrs. Delores Jacobs, representing the National
<br />Welfare Rights Organization, appeared before the Council requesting a grant of $50 per child for school
<br />clothing as this was an emergency due to children dropping out of sdlool. She further stated that the City
<br />of Richmond had appropriated $200,000 for school clothing.
<br />
<br /> Unon investigation, I find that this is not the case. The Richmond City Council has taken no action at
<br />this time. It is also noted that the National Welfare Rights renresentatives appearing before the Richmond
<br />City Council asked for $18 per child.
<br />
<br /> This request for $50 per child was also requested from the Norfolk City Council by the above organization.
<br />Norfolk has not appropriated any funds but did consider a resolntion petitioning the State Welfare Board to
<br />provide sufficient funds to pay the State's share of 100% of basic needs of Aid to Dependent Children recipients
<br />
<br /> This appears to be a State-wide problem, affectinE other cities in Virginia and, therefore, is the respon-
<br />sibility of the State Welfare Board. This Board stipulates the amoumts of all welfare grants based on regu-
<br />lations established by the Federal and State Governments and the City must pay its pro-rata share.
<br />
<br /> Welfare recimients in Virginia receive 90% of basic needs, as determined by the State Welfare Department
<br />in lieu of 100% of their needs. This is caused by the General Assembly not appropriating sufficient funds
<br />to allow 100% allocation of needs. The difference between the 90% of need and the 100% would amount .to at
<br />least the additional $50 being requested.
<br />
<br /> In reviewing welfare cost in Portsmouth, I find that in fiscal 1964-65 $1,593,394.09, of which $724,775.45
<br />was in the Aid to Dependent Children category, was expended. In fiscal 1968-69 (four years later)
<br />$$,030~151.46, of which $1,548,782.89 was for Aid to Dependent Children, was expended. This shows a 90% in-
<br />crease in welfare in four years and a 114% increase in the Aid to Dependent Children category.
<br />
<br /> ~ further information to the City Council, there is paid a clothing allowance in the grants under the
<br />Aid to Dependent Children category at the present time. The formula is as follows:
<br />
<br />(1) Child $ 8.00 per month
<br />(2) Children 16.00 " "
<br />(5) " 23.00 " "
<br />[4) " 32.00 " "
<br />(5) " ~9.00" "
<br />(6) " 47.00 " "
<br />(7) " 54.00 " "
<br />[8) " 62.00 " "
<br />
<br />
<br />
|