|
362
<br />
<br />June lB, 1963
<br />
<br /> OR CARRY THE SA~E TO GAS APPLIANCES, AND REGULATING THE INSTALLATION AND
<br /> MAINTENANCE 'OF APPILIAN~ES DEBIGNF~TOUTILIZE SUC~ GALAS A FUEL7 PROV'tD~NG -'
<br /> FOR~THEINSPECTION OF SAID 'PIPING AND-CERtAIN APPLIANCES; PROVIDING ~OR '"
<br /> THE ISSUANOE OF PERMITS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SAI'~ PIPING A~D CERTAIN
<br /> APPLIANCES AND THE COIJRCTION OF~INSPE~TION FEES THEREFOR; PROVIDING FOR
<br /> THE LICENSING OF PERSONS ENGAGING IN THE BUSINESS OF INSTALLING, REPAIRING,
<br /> OR MAINTAINING SAID PIPI-NG OR CERTAIN APP~,IANCES'; ~ROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
<br /> THE VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES.". .
<br /> 63-140 - "I submit the attached ordinance and recommend it be placed on first reading.
<br /> This Ordinance condemns property on Rou%e; ~37 (Portsmouth Boulevard) necessary 5o be
<br />acquired for the widening of.this street.
<br /> This condemnation is necessary to acquire proper title to the ~ndi"
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr~ 'Knight, the ~following ordZnance was approved on first re~ding:
<br />
<br />Tax Plate 64.
<br />without dissenting
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY
<br />THE CI~TY-OF, PORTSMOUTE UNDEREMINENT DOMAIN PROOEEDINGS~PURS~ANT TO
<br />CHAPTER~25~ OF THE ACTS OF ASSeMBlY OF t9~8,'S~ID PROPERTY BEING
<br />NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF A PORTION OF PORTSMOUTH BOULEVARD, ROUTE
<br />337, PARCEL 172 X"
<br />
<br />63-141 - "I-recommend that [ be authorized-to offer' for sate lots-12 through 16,
<br />
<br />parcel 56,
<br />
<br />This-is~ property'~tocat~ed st':the end of M'~tHews Te~'ce, a large portion of which is under
<br />
<br /> This has been approved by the Planning Commxss~on.
<br />
<br /> Motion~of Mr. Barnes ~o concur ~n the recommendation of the City Manager was adopted,
<br />vote.
<br />
<br />.... UI~F~INISHEB~B~SINESS ~ . ~
<br />
<br />63-120 - The following ordinance, approved on first read.lng st last meeting., was taken up
<br />
<br />snd read:
<br />
<br />"ZONING-ANd~ND~ENT ORDINANCE Z 63-12"
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Dillon the ordinance was adopted and by.the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Smith, Barnes, Dillon, Eastes, K~i.ght, Leafy
<br /> Nays: None
<br />
<br />63-120 -- The following ~rdi~sncef a~proved'o~ first reading at fas~ meeting, was taken up
<br />
<br />and read:
<br />
<br />"ZONING AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Z 63-16"
<br />
<br />On motio~T Mr. Eastes, the o~dinance-was-adopted, and by the follbwing yore:
<br />
<br />Ayes: ~r~lh, Barnes, Dillon, Eastes,~Knight, Leary
<br />Nays:~ ~o~e
<br />
<br />and read:
<br />
<br />63-1Z0 - T~e ~ollewin~ ordinance, approved on firsz reading at lasz meeting was taken up
<br />
<br /> "ZONING AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Z ~3-17"
<br />
<br /> The following communication from the Planning Commission, signed by the Chairman, W. T.
<br />Goode, Jr., was read: ': .........
<br />
<br /> "Ab its r~gular monthly-meebin~ro~ June 4~ 1~63, %he C~ty P~anning Commission discussed aE
<br />considerable length- Severa~ recent c-asea where~'difTerences of:-opinion-'on, rezo~ing petitions have ~xist~d .~etween
<br />the City Planning Commission ~and'OityCo~ncil. ' ' :
<br /> The Planning Commission states thzt the final-d~cision in every.~sse ties with you elected
<br />officials. The Planning Commission recognizes and reaffirms its role as an agenz of municipal government whose
<br />admi~i, strati~e duties~'are~subje~ 5o rev±aw by City Oounoil and:whose powers ~aEe so~ly advisory in nature.
<br />However, the Commission feels that some of its effort is being overlooked and some of its actions and recommenda-
<br />tions misconstrued 'or misunderstood.
<br /> The~ Plashing C~ymmiss~on phi~t-t~yn~tes'that i~s~ fii%ding~, ~onc~usions,' and recommendations
<br />with reference to rezoningare ~o~ being teac pub~ia~ a~Ci~y Cou~c'il~meetin~s nor ~e~ease~-~o the press at that
<br />time but are finding;their ~ay into the possession of those whb s~ek to u~ldermine the re~onlng ~dva~ed by the
<br />Planning Commission. No one in this agency wishesto co~ert the ord.e~Iy :D~es~Of rez~ng in~o one of deba~e
<br />and political sH~uggl'e. Moreover, ~d:one in~-t~is:agency'sug~ests ~ha~{~ c~s~om~ri:ty ac'ce~e~F~ebuttal is called'
<br />for; but it is felt that current practices could and should be revisedi to safeguard t~e noncep%~lof zoning fo~ the
<br />-protection and ba~termen~ of our community.
<br /> As s case in-~oi~t, Ehe Planning Commis-s~on s~ongly feels that ~ezoning applicatkon
<br /> "Z-63-~ the Petition of the Baldwin-Myers Company 1700 Camden Auenue to rezone property on the northwest
<br /> corner of Jefferson Street and-Camden Avenue from R~side~Hiat Ri60 to Indu~'tri~l~M-2,'%'shb~ld be re%iewed by
<br />City Council prior ~o further consideration in orde~ t~at a most undesirable a~d disastrous precedent will not be
<br />set. In its letter of M~y 23, 1963, the Planning Commission se5 forth what was believed ~o have sufficient
<br />reasons for rejection of this vicious attempt a~ Bpoe zoning to extend mn illegal use. The Planning Commission
<br />emphatically believes that its reasoning in this case, if properly considered, will be sufficient to produce
<br />
<br />
<br />
|