Minutes 03/28/1961 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

from heron Parkway nor'th to Paradise Creek with'the understanding that one half of Gilmerton BoUlevard would become'the property of Mr. Kenn4~iy and the.'othe~ adjoined to-my, present prope~y.- At your December'27thmeet~n~ which I attended, I was told the Planning Cormmission would pass on same and I Would in turn be notified. ~ - In the Portsmouth Star of both January 7thla~d26th~ it read Council had passed the ordinance re~uested~ To date-I have not received, an~v not&ce.and I should'like to ask information on same, also procedure that legal steps require in this matter,. I sm.aware of your heavy schedule of late. Thanking you for your cons~deratmon. without dissenting vote. Motion of Mr. Barnes to refer to the City Attorney for answer, was adopted, $1-89 - The. following communication fromHunter G. Webb was read: "On February lst,, 1961, I subm%tted my resignation as ~ member of the Ports- mouth Planning Commission to Mayor R. Irving Smith. Cop~es were forwarded to the City Manager, Planning Direc- tor and Chairman of the Planning Commission. On Sundmy ~fternoon, .February 5t~, Mayor Smith telephoned mete inquire as to my reasons for resigning, and also to express his desire that I withdraw my resignation. During our 'conversa - rich, I stated my reasons substantially the same as will be stated in this letter. I also pointed out that I could ao~ ~a~ ~tha~ time £eresee any circumstances that wo~ld influence me tochange my mind, but as a personal favor to him, I.~would no~ close the door to his request. On Tuesday evening, February 14th, after ~ha~ing re - considered the mather for over a week, I telephoned' Mayor Smith and informed him that I preferred not to with - draw my resignation. Since the announcement in the local newspapers on Wednesday, February 5th~ that the Council had held up action on my resignation, I have received a number of inquiries as to why I re - signed .from theCommission. In view of the Council decision to h~ld up ~ction on my resignation and the citizen inqui~ies~ as to why I resigned, I feet~that both the C~uncil and the general public should now be given a full explanation of the circumstances leading to my decision ~o resign, I have therefore prepared .this statement in the form of an open letter, copies of ~hich are being forwarded to each member of the C~ity Council~ the City Manag~,. the Ledger Star and the Virginian Pilot newspers. Myopinions are therefore expressed in the following paragraphs. The Portsmouth Plamling Commission, a~ a. specia~l meeting on ~anuary 20, 196~, approved a change in the proposed zoning ordinance which will, if approved by the City Council, allow boat marinas i~ every waterfront~'~esiden-tial area of the City (R~lSO,. R-75, R-75 s, R-60 and R-6OA) under the autho- rity of a special use permit issued by the City Council. This change was suggested ~o the Commission in s memorandum from ~Cit~ Attorney Livesay and Planning.Director Momre. This change was not brought before the com- mission for co~siderafion until after the commission had held public hearings on the ordinance in seven differ- ent areas of the City. The City Ateerney vigorously and uncompromisingly pressed for quick passage of this re- vision. I opposed this change, primarily for ~hree reasons: first, this- change does not provide wa~erfronl home owners with adequate protection against certain dangers resulting from special use permits, ~nich, in my opinion, is a form of spot zoning; secondly, I considered the change unnecessary and have serious doubts as to whether the alleged de£iciency is ~ deficiency in fact; and thirdly, it appears ~o me that the change is, in effect, a loop-hole by which the City Manager end City Council, e% some future date, could possibly be called upon to grant specisl benefits or privileges. As an example of ~ situation that might develop in regard to the special bene- fits referred to above, attention is respectfully invited to. the following-paragraph quoted from page 13 of the opinion handed down i n the Portsmouth C curt of Hustings in the case between certain residents of Shes Terrace and the Pritchard Marine Railway: "Ce~unsel for the complainants is requested: to draft an appropriate decree enjoining the defendant from using the bulkheading and filled area, sho'wn as pro- posed work on the plan submitted to 'the U.S. Corps of Engineers, in connection with his business conducted under the mama of Pritchard Marine Railway or in connection with any 'other business er commercial undertaking conducted on the premises; and also enjoining the.defendant from maintaining the 'linger'piers' extending outward from the bulkhead and requiring him to remove'them within 60 days after this decree becomes final.' It appears to me that the quoted par't of the Court opinion places the Pritchard Marine Railway in the position whereby it will be prohibited from using, ~in connection with its business, the extended or enlarged part of its property. If ~herofore the marina change is approved by the Council, then it seems ~o me that both the City Manager and the City Council could, if a proper application is submitted, ~ssue a specimal use permit for a boat marmna ~o operate on the Pritchard Marine Railway Property. This then would have the effect of'circumventing or nullifying the Oourt decision, as well as that~of having the effect of granting special benefits. In view of these circumstances, it'is therefore believed to 'be in the public interest to hereby res pectfully reques~ the City Manager and each mezber of the City Council, to publicly sta~e his answer to the following question: '~If t~e ma~na change is approved by"~he city Council, and if tha Pritchard Marine Railway, under its present name or that of a marins, or under any other name, eithe~iregtly or i~direc~ly, ~hould apply for s special use permit to use that parn of its property that the Court opinion sta~es.'the facility will be enjoined from using, would you under any conceivable circumstances vo~e ~o appvove, or recommend approval of the application, end if so, w4at would be the circumstances under which you would approve the application?' The City Attorney and Planning~Director's marina memorandum contained a nnmber of statements that were obvious- ly intended to justify the suggest~l change in the ordinance, but inmy opinion, these statements were vague, immaterial or misleading, and therefore offered nothing conc rede either for or against thesuggested marina change~ -T~ere was however one~sta-tement in.the memorandum that is worthy of comment. This statement reads as follows: 'In effect, waterfronx developmen~ plans for the s~-called Merrimac Park marina are nullified aswill be several RUMORED PRIVATE ~M3~RINAS (Note: Underlining and capital letters added). This s~atement and the dis - .cussion a~ ~he Jenuery~20th c~m~issi~n~me~ting, led m~ to believe that the chief concern of the proponents of the ~arina change was that the all'egeddefieiency ~n the ordinance might result in the loss of the so-called Merrimac Park marina ~o the City of Portsmouth. Wi~%~ this 9iewf~, I clearly stated that I wes no~ opposed to the Merrimae-Park marin~. I ~also preposed two :amendments t6~ {he sugge~sted marina change, either one of ~nich, would have cleared the way for the Merrimac Park marmna, but both amendments were unacceptable~ Since these amendments were no~ acceptable, it then became apparent ~o me that the chief concern over the alleged de- ficiency:very likely-was the several rumored private marinas referre~ ~to in th~ marina memorandum, rkther than the Merrimac Park marina. The amendments which I proposed, and which, in my opinion, were considered with such ai