|
August 14th; 1956.
<br />
<br />The following petitions were presented:
<br />
<br /> "We, the undersigned owners of proper~y adjacent to lots 18, 20, 22 and 24 of block ll2,
<br />respectfully petition your. honorable,body to disapprovethe rezoning of the aforementioned lots. By our signatures
<br />affixed tothis petition, we oppose all further commercial encroachment upon our residential area.
<br />
<br />(Signed)
<br /> Mr. and Mrs. Evan W. Louis,
<br /> 3521 Henry St. - and numerous others."
<br />
<br /> "The Westhaven Park Civic League, at a special meeting held 5 July 1956, and regular
<br />monthly meeting S August 1956, voted unanimously to oppose the rezon~ng of lots 18, 20, 22 and 24 of block 112,
<br />located along Rodman Ave., between Henry and. Brighton Sts., The League.is of the opinion that zoning these lots
<br />for other than dwelling use would materially depreciate the values of residential properties which surround the
<br />above described lots. The League is also of the opinion that resorting for even limited commercial use would ser-
<br />iously aggravate undesirable conditions presently occasioned by'non-local-resident! type of patronage currently
<br />attracted to the ares by commercial establishments which cater to such patrons, The League is further of the opinq
<br />ion that rezoning of the above described lots would invite continued intrusion by commercial interests. This,in
<br />turn would introdu6e~elements incompatible with the essential characteristics necessary to the existence of desir-
<br />able residential areas.
<br /> We, the members of the Westhaven Park Civic League, request that you give this matter
<br />your most serious consideratio~ when this matter comes before you.
<br />
<br />petition:
<br />
<br />(Signed) Rita D. Fitzgerald, Secretary."-
<br />
<br />by the following voze:
<br />
<br />(3)
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Baker to lay this matter on the Table until next meeting, was adopted, and
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Duke, Baker, Grimes, Hawks, Smith, Sturtevant
<br /> Nays: Bilisoly, Howard, Lawrence, Wilson
<br />
<br />Donald Kilgore spoke for the application of Bessie R. Kreger, and presented the following
<br />
<br /> "We, the undersigned property owners, by. signing this petition, e~rpress to this City Coun-
<br />cil that we will not voice any objection to the rezoning petition for the change of the zoning classification of
<br />the property located ar 203 Court St., from the present classification of. Class 'E! (Multiple Family) to Class
<br />(Local Business), having been given assurance tha~ the~building is to De used as legal offices.
<br />
<br /> Portsmouth, Va.,
<br />~Court St. in the 200 block~ Portsmouth." _and voiced m~oppQ~ition~ the petition to change the zoning of this
<br />proper~y. The next morning I was advised that the petition had been denied and that it will be on the Council
<br />agenda, ~ugust 14, 1956. This letter is to reiterate my opposition to any change in rezoning in this block. My
<br />
<br /> (Signed) Mrs.Wm.R.Lowe, 205 Court St."
<br />
<br /> The following letter was read:
<br />
<br /> "On J~y 12th, L956, I attended, the public hearing held by the Planning Co~ssion ofl
<br />regarding the above subject "Public Housing for r~zoning of property located on the east side of
<br />
<br />reasons are as follows:-
<br />
<br /> 1. I own property at 217, 219 and 221 Court St., used as a m~lti-family
<br /> dwelling. My tenants have bee~ with me for years and I want to keep them.
<br /> 2. By allowing one unit to be zoned for business in this block, an opening
<br /> wedge will be granted thatc9ald easily~lead to other petitions for all
<br /> ~k~udsofbusiness, both desirable and undesirable.
<br />For these reasons I consid6rany rezoning of property for business in this block
<br />
<br />detrimental to my best interests.
<br />
<br />Yours very truly -(Mrs. H.W.) Mary E. Sykes.~'
<br />
<br /> Motion of l~r. Bilisoly not to cqncurin the recommendation of the Planning Commission
<br />and to approve the application of B~ssie R. Kreger for resorting, was ad~pted.
<br />
<br /> (4) Motion of Mr. Bilisoly re concur in the recommendation of the PlUg Commission in
<br />denying the.application of David J. Frank for rezoning, was adQpted.
<br />
<br /> (5) The following people spQke for the application oD Job]/ ~. Lacy to rezone property on
<br />~he south side of Scott St.: John T. Lacy, Frank Moore, Nargare~ Sweet,
<br /> ~ Start Barret~ speke against th? a~plication of John T. ~cy.
<br /> ~otion.o~Mr~.~B~ker ~:~in~.~r~d~nddat~o~ the~>P~anning Co.m~m_ission in deny-
<br /> ing the application of J~hn T. Lacy for r~zo ni~g, w~as adopted.
<br /> (6) Motion of Mr. Howard not ~o concur in the recommendation of the Planning Commission and
<br />uo approve the ~pplication of Henry E. Lauderbach for rezoning, was adopted.
<br /> Mr. Hawks voting 'No'..
<br />
<br /> The following repor~ from the Library Committee was presented:
<br />
<br /> 58-2Z3~We, the Committee, appoi~ sometime ago ~o study ~nd make a recommendation as
<br />the location of an adequate Public Library Building for our City, wish to advise that we have had several co~ufer-
<br />ences ~with the Library Board and their commitzee regarding the mett~r as well as discussions among ourselves, and
<br />due consideration has been given a number of sites that have been suggested.
<br /> . The Committee has devoted much time to this matter; we have visited many sites sug -
<br />gested, and even went so far as to get an a~p~aisal on .one location. In some instances, we did not feel the loca-
<br />tion p~per .as we realized .this :was~most important; in othe~s, we felt the cost would be too great. Realizing at
<br />all times that we should pi~ fbr the future as~well as .the preslent, we continued to make a thorough study of the
<br />
<br />
<br />
|