Laserfiche WebLink
April 27, 1965 <br /> <br />read: <br /> <br />The City Attorney was requested to investigate the possiblity of a substitute ordinance. <br /> <br />65-101 - The following ordinance approved on first reading at last meeting was taken up and <br /> <br /> "AN ORDINANCE TO RE~DVE PORTSMOUTH FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE <br /> STATE PUPIL PLACEMENT BOARD AND VEST THE POWER OF PUPIL ASSIGNMBNT <br /> IN THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH" <br /> <br />On motion of Mr. Johnson, the ordinance was adopted and by the following vote: <br /> <br /> Ayes: Smith, Dillon, Hastes, Johnson, Knight, Leafy <br /> Nays: None <br /> <br />read: <br /> <br />65-108 - The foll~wing ordinance approved on first reading at last meeting was taken up and <br /> <br />"AN ORBINANCE TO APPROVE THE SALE OF TWO ~ILLION DOLLARS OF GENERAL <br />OBLIGATION BONDS PROVIDED IN THE ORDINANCE ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL <br />ON MARCH 9, 1965, AND FIXING THE RATE OF INTERBST FOR SAID BONDS" <br /> <br />On motion of ~. Leary, the ordinance was adopted and by the following vote: <br /> <br /> Ayes: Smith, Dillon, Hastes, Johnson, Knight, Leafy <br /> Nays: None <br /> <br /> 65-76 - Motion of Mr. Knight to go into the elction of members'~o the Parking Authority <br />was adopted without dissenting vote. <br /> <br />Mr. Eastes nominated the following: <br /> <br />Bernard Rivin for a one-year term <br />Burton Gamble for a twe-y~ar term <br />Clinton O. Crawford for a three-year term <br />Seaborn J. Flournoy for a four-year term <br />Dr. Dan Duncan for a five-year term <br /> <br />On motion of Mr. Dillon, nominations were closed. <br /> <br />Vote being taken the five nominees were unanimously elected for the terms specified. <br />65-79 - Zoning Petition Z-65-8, Herbert G. Gray, deferred from last meeting was taken up. <br />Donald Kilgore attorney, spoke. <br /> <br /> Motion of Mr. Johnson to approve the application and to place the following ordinance on <br />first reading was adopted and by the following vote: <br /> <br />"ZONING A~ND~ENT ORDINANCE Z-65-8" <br /> <br />Ayes: Smith, Johnson, Knight, Leafy <br />Nays: M~t~on, Hastes <br /> <br /> Mr. Knight in voting for the approval stated he based his vote on statement of Councilman <br />Johnson, regarding his survey of the site. <br /> <br />NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br /> 65-119 - The following cormuunication from the Portmmouth Recreation Advisory Board was read: <br /> <br /> "In a letter of September 1, 1964, this Board endorsed the proposed plan for Scott's Creek <br />Park as presented by City Planning Director, J. Brewer Moore. <br /> Since that date, several citizens and citizens' groups have made inquiries concerning the <br />progress and/or development of that area for park and recreational purposes. Thus, far, we have had very little <br />progress to report. <br /> While the Board is cognizant that an undertaking such as this involves considerable expense <br />and cannot be accomplished overnight, the members are also concerned over any delays that may have been encountered <br />thus far. <br /> Consequently, maywe again urge City Council to use every means at its disposal to expedite <br />the development of this much-needed area so that, in the not too distant future, it will be a~ailable for the use <br />and enjoyment by the citizens of our community. <br /> Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated." <br /> <br /> Motion of Hr. Hastes to receive as~information and refer to a conference of the Council <br />was adopted without dissenting vbte. <br /> <br /> 65-120 - The following communication from Cecil W. Johnson, Clerk, Hustings Court, was read: <br /> <br /> "As required by Title 24-141 of the Code of Virginia, I am transmitting to you herewith <br />Certificate of ~he Commissioners of Hlection, giving the result of the Special Election held on April 20, t965, <br />repealing the Ordinance passed by City Council on December 22, 1964, to authorize the sale of beer and wine on <br />Sunday, at which election Three Thousand ~ight Hundred Ninety (5890) votes were cast "For" the repeal of the <br />Ordinance and Three Thousand Five Hmn'dr~d Ninety-five ($595) votes were cast "Against" it." <br /> <br /> <br />