|
on the part of the commission members, the City Attorney and Planning Direc-
<br /> degree
<br /> indifference
<br />
<br /> ANZEND~{ENT #1: Modify tko suggested change by deleting all residential classifications except
<br />R~$0-A (delete R-150, R-75, R-TS~S and R-SO). This modification would permit the City Council Eo issue a
<br />special use permit to prevent .nullification of the so-called]~errimac Park marina plans, and at the same time,
<br />it would nog strip waterfront residential property owners of a fair opportunity to protect their investment in
<br />waterfront property against the dangers of spot zoning by means of a special use permit. This modification
<br />would have little or no effect on the residents in R-$0-A areas because, according to the new zoning map, there
<br />are only three areas in the entire City that are classified as R-60-A: Two of these three areas are not suit-
<br />able for boat marinas since they are completely bounded by land; the third R-60-A area is in the vicinity Of
<br />the new post office building where the so-called Merrimac Park marina ms supposed to be located. It therefore
<br />seems to me that allowing the marina in the R-60-A area in the vicinity of the new post office under the autho-
<br />rity of a use permit, would present no particular problems or difficulties because there are au the present
<br />time only a few residents in the immediate area, and there will probably be less when a renewal program gets
<br />
<br /> AMENDMENT # 2: Modify that part of the new zoning ordinance that prescribes the procedure for
<br />securing a use permit re include a requirement that each application for a use permit, must be accompanied by
<br />a petition signed by aE least seventy-five (75) per cent of the residents living in th~ three (3] block~erea
<br />immediately surround&ag ,the property for which a permit is being requested, and stating that the residents
<br />have u~objection to the permit being issued. This amendment would clear the way for the Merrimac Park marina,
<br />as well as provide a reasonable degree of protection for all.waterfront home owners.
<br />
<br /> In view of the factual evidence, opinions and circumstances set forth in this
<br />statement, I believ~ that submitting mY resignation as ~ member of the Portsmouth Planning Commission, was
<br />necessary, and proper course of action; Signed -- Hunter' G. Webb."
<br />
<br /> Me,ion of Mr.~Walker that the resignation be-accepted with r~grets and tha~the
<br />question of a replacement for Mr. ~ebb be considered at the~extco~nf6~eacerwas adopted, without dissenting
<br />vote.
<br />
<br /> The following letter from the City Attorney was read:
<br />
<br /> "Under date of March gl, 1961, Mr.~ Hunter G. Webb addressed a letter ~o the City
<br />Council e~plsining his reasons for having submitted his resignation from the-Planning Commission.
<br />
<br /> - ' · ~ It ~s r~gretted-tlmt Mr; Webb'has chosen to' de~l in personalities and that stil~
<br />another attempt is heing, made to involve.this office in the unfortunate dispate over continued operation of the l
<br />Pritchard Marine Railway. Several assertions made by Mr. W ebb concerning me and my conduct are considered
<br />to be unwarranted and of no value in resolving the issue which precipitated Mr. Webb's resignation. Therefore,
<br />I feel compelled Eo respond to such assertions.
<br /> A.joint recommendation of the City Attorney and the Planning Directorconeerning
<br />marinas was presented to the Planning Commission on January 6, 196], with request that it be studied by the
<br />CommissIoners. The following is quoted from the minutes of a special meeting of the Commission held January
<br />13, 196~:
<br /> 'Mr. Webb asked that the matter of insertion of 'marinas' in the text be
<br /> deferred for further study.'
<br />
<br /> Further reference ~o this subject is found in the minutes of a special meeting
<br />held January 20, 1961, as follows:
<br />
<br />'Discussion of the insertio~of 'marinas' into the 'Table of Permitted Uses'
<br />in the proposed Zoning Ordinance took 91ace~ on item deferred from the
<br />previous special meeting. It was agreed that 'marinas' should be included
<br />with welfare institutions, clubs, otc,, under the off-street parking section.
<br />On motion of Mr. Murden, seconded by Mrs. Tatum, these suggestions were
<br />adopted with Mr. Webb casting the only dissenting vote.'
<br />
<br /> Mr. Webb was present at all of these meetings, He stated, that he would vote in
<br /> favor of the proposal concerning marinas if it could be worded so that the Pritchard Marine Ra-ilway could not
<br /> qualify for a use permit thereunder.
<br /> The members of City Conncil will recall that the subject proposal was considered
<br /> finally by them in conference on February 20~ 1961, st whioh time the proposed treatment of marinas was ordered
<br /> to be printed in the proposed ordinance, with one councilman opposed thereto.
<br /> Mr. Webh's assertion that the writer 'vigorously and uncompromisingly pressed
<br />for quick passagD of this revision' is not borne ouz by the record or the remembrances of other members of the
<br />Planning Con~ission. Perhaps Mr. Webb has confused my efforts to secure for the entire City a much needed
<br />new zoning ordinance, in conformity with the expressed desires of six of the councilmen.
<br /> ~ir. Webb further states that this proposal was not made until after the Planning
<br />Commission had held public hearings. By direction of the City Council such hearings as were held by the Plan -
<br />ning Commission were limited to discussions regarding the proposed zoning map, and the general public a~ that
<br />time had not been furnished verbatim copies of the proposed ordinance. Moreover, one could only assume that
<br />changes would be considered after any public hearing, otherwise the invitation to the public 5o participate in
<br />public hearings would be a travesty upon democratic processes. In any ca%~, Mr. Webb had no trouble in per-
<br />sonally making the motion Eo change the text of the ordinance with respect to a~other recommendation advanced
<br />in the joint memorandum re which he has referred.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Webb also contends that the joint memorandum contained statements that were
<br />'vague, immaterial or misleadiag'. I have no pride of authorship in the subjecE memorandum, a copy Of which is
<br />attached, because it was written by the Planning Director. He,ever, I did approve of the language thereof and I
<br />resent such accusations. MoreDyer, the Planning Commission on two occasions engaged in considerable discussion
<br />of the facts and opinions expressed therein. These discussions included spe cific reference to several
<br />marina-type operations, other than the Pritchard Ma~ine Railway,. which would be pug out of business one year
<br />after the adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance should the s~u~-gested provisions concerning marinas not be
<br />followed.
<br /> In conclusxon, I want to declare my continued intention of serving the majority
<br />view in the Council, Planning Commission, eec., with due regard to the rights of any minority view properly
<br />expressed. (Signed) J.S. Livesay, Jr., City Attorney."
<br />
<br />
<br />
|