My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes 11/28/1961
Portsmouth-City-Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1960s
>
Year 1961
>
Minutes 11/28/1961
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/22/2001 4:42:42 PM
Creation date
10/22/2001 4:41:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City Council - Type
Adopted Minutes
City Council - Date
11/28/1961
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
November 28th, 1961 <br /> <br />At a regular meeting of the City Council, held on November 2Sth, 1961, <br /> <br />R. Irvine Smith, C. S. Atkinson, Jack P. Barnes, John L. Dillon, W. T. <br />George R. Wnlker, J. S. Livesay, City Attorney. <br /> <br />The meeting was opened with prayer by Mr. Leafy. <br /> <br />61-319 - The following public hearing on zoning changes was held: <br /> <br /> 13-61 - Petition of A. V. Roesel. <br /> <br /> Clyde W. Cooper, attorney,' spoke for'the application. <br /> <br /> The following people spoke against the application: <br /> <br />R. M. Melton <br />David A. Little <br />Howard Piles <br />G. C. Siceloff <br /> <br />1017 City Park Avenue <br />4906 Old Suffolk Boulevard <br />4904 Old Suffolk Boulevard <br />1027 City Park Avenue <br /> <br />there were present: <br />Leafy, <br /> <br />Ayes: Smith, Atkinson, Barnes, 'Leafy, Walker <br />Nays: Dillon. <br /> <br />14-61 - Petition of Shope and Stampley. <br /> <br />Andrew O. Stampley spoke for the application. <br /> <br />without dissenting vote: <br /> <br />On motion of Mr. Atkinson, the following ordinance was approved on first reading, <br /> "ZONING'A~iEND~ENT ORDINANCE 1961-14" - <br /> <br />16-61 - Petition of Sadie R. Brinkley. <br /> <br />No one spoke in regard to the'application. <br /> <br />Motion of Mr. Leafy to approve the 'following ordinance on first reading was adopted, <br /> <br />without dissenting vote: <br /> <br />"ZONING A~ENDMENT ORDINANCE 1961-16" <br /> <br />18-61 - Petition of Raymond B. ZedS. <br /> <br />No one spoke in regar~ to' the ~application. <br /> <br />Motion of Mr. Walker to approve the following ordinance on first reading was adopted, <br /> <br />without dissenting vote: <br /> <br />"ZONING ANLENDN~ENT ORDINANCE 1961-18" <br /> <br /> UP-l-61 - Application for Use Permit, Item 165, Table of Uses, "Marina", Pritchard. <br /> <br /> Motion of Mr. Barnes to refer back to the Plsnning Con~ission for presentation of <br />additional information by the applicant was -ad~pted,~ and by the following vote: <br /> <br />Ayes: Smith, Atkinson, Barnes, Dillon, Leafy <br />Nays: Walker. '~ <br /> <br />The following reports from the-City Manager were read: <br /> <br /> 6 -320 - ~ I submit the attached letter received from the Department of Welfare and <br />Institutions. This concerns the City of Portsmouth's request for the construction of a Juvenile Detention Home zn <br />the Portsmouth-Suffolk ares. This-is' submitted-for' your lnformatzonj - <br /> <br />- Attached - "You will recall that you were informed when you appeared before the State Board of Wel- <br />fare and Institutions on October 10 that the question of Poss'ibl~e S~ate participation in the construction of a <br />detention home by Portsmouth City in the Suffolk area Would be considered by the State Board at a subsequent meet- <br />lng. The Boar6 met on yesterday and discussed~ the proposal set forth in your letter of September 12 and presented <br />by you personally at the October meeting. - - ~ <br /> It is the consensus of those members who w)re present at yesterday's meeting that no <br />sufficient justification has been shown to exist at'the present'tim) for State participatfon in the construction <br />of sn additional detention home in the Portsmouth-Norfolk County-Suffolk area. <br /> Because of the illness of'two members of the State ~oard and the absence of a third one <br />from the city, a quorum of the Board was not~presen~ on yester'day. Therefore, the State Board, as a wh&le, has not <br />acted on the matter. It is my belief, however, from the discussions which took place on October 10 and at yesmer- <br />day's meeting, there being a majority of'the members present at~ one or the other of these meetings, that the <br />expression yesterday represents the view of the Board as a wh~le. <br /> <br /> Motion of Mr. Walker to concur in the recommendation of the Planning Commission to <br />disapprove the application was adopted, and by the following vote: <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.