|
July 10th, 1956.
<br />
<br />w~s created, znd many,are all too prone to forget the law by which an authority derives its power.
<br /> The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals also said that the power of eminent domain
<br />which is given under law-must be 'strictly construed and every reasonable doubt is to be resolved against the
<br />r~ght.' In.other words, whenever'there is doubt, the ~la~ must be resolved - nor in favor of a governing body, or
<br />as s housing authority migh~ desire it -- but must be-in favor of the citizen and a~versely to the government.
<br /> Sincerely -
<br /> James G.H. Mitchell."
<br />
<br />On motion filed.
<br />
<br />- UNFINISHED BUSINESS
<br />
<br />up and read:
<br />
<br />56-131 - The following ordinance, placed on first reading on April 24th, was taken
<br />
<br />"AN ORDIN~/~CE TO AMEND THE LICENSE TAX ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH,
<br />BY ADDING A NEW SECTION TO PLACE A TAX ON THE BUSINESS OF FURNISHING
<br />TRADING STAMPS, COUPONS, ETC."
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Howard, said ordinance was adopted and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Duke, Baker, Bilisoly, Grimes, Hawks, Howard, Lawrence,
<br /> Smith, Sturtevant, Wilson
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />NEW BUSINESS -
<br />
<br />58-206 - The following letter from the City Attorney was read:
<br />
<br /> "At your last meeting you referred to me the question concerning the building moved
<br />by Harry L. Goodman fromthe southwest corner of Court and King Sts. to Airline Boulevard, near Cumberland Ave.
<br />I find the building was constructed in two sections. The first section was con -
<br />srructed about 1904 by T.J. Barlow to be used as a lam' office for his son, Richard Cox Barlow. The second section
<br />a larger strncture, was constructed some years later hy Dr. C.H. Barlow. Both sections were substantially con - I
<br />structed, of good materials, and were well kept for many years. The building now appears to be in good condition I
<br />and rests on a flush concrete wall foundation. For years it was used for office lm~rposes and later as a dress
<br />shop. It has not been occupied since it was moved ~o its present location. The building fronts on Airline Blvd.,
<br />setting diagonally to the Boulevard and approximately parallel to Cumberland Ave. and Griffin St. Its nearest I
<br />point is 9~ feet and its furtherest point approximately 20 feet ~rom A~rllne Blvd. It has a s~delzne space of ~
<br />one foot on its east side and 2 feet 8 inches on its west side. The rear of the building is 9 ft. 9 inches from
<br />Griffin St. Its location on the lot appears to comply with the Building Code and. the Zoning regulations. The
<br />land was recently rezoned and placed in Class G,Commercial.
<br /> There are no sidewalks on either Airline Blvd. or Griffin St., and about three
<br />automobiles can be park~ed off the pavement of Griffin St. in the rear of the building, about three or four in
<br />the front of the building.
<br /> NLr. Goodman owns lots number 18 and 20 in block 183, fronting 60 feet on Griffin
<br />Street and about 330 feet from the building in question, and he has designated these Two lets as a parking area
<br />in order to comply with the recent ordinance prescribing parking spaces.
<br /> It is the only building facing Airline Blvd. between Loudoun and Cumberland Ave-
<br />nues, the two intersecting streets, the only ether structure being a sign boar~ erected more or less perpendicular
<br />ro the szree~ and its end extending about as near t6 the roadway as the building of Mr. Goodman. There are rest
<br />deuces in the block fronting on Griffin Street, ~ith two ~ots or sixty feet of open land grown up in ~rees and
<br />bushes.
<br /> There is no ordinance providin~ for s set back line on Airline Boulevard located
<br /> HigJ~ St. and Rodman Ave. set baok various distances ranging from
<br /> in the commercial area. The buildings between
<br /> 14.5 fee? to 30 feet on the southeast side.except the building at the corner of Rodman Ave., which is apparently
<br /> on the property line. However, the officials Who ~ave been charge~d with issuing building ~ermits made it a policy
<br /> t~-reqnes~ persons applying for permits to set the building at least twenty feet back after explaining to them
<br /> that cars could not be par~ed in the roadway.
<br /> An application for the placing of the building on the ~o~ was made by R.S. DeLoatch
<br /> and Son, Contractor for Harry Goodman, on ~arch 12, 1956, giving the size of the building as 16 by 40 f~et. The
<br /> bllilding is much larger in size, the first section being approximately 14 feet three inches by 24 feet, and the
<br /> second section approximately 26.3 feet by 40.5 feet. A bond in the penalty of $10,000. w~s required before the
<br /> building was moved, and was furnished by Fred S. Sherman and Son, who movedlthe building, and a surety company
<br /> A permit was issued for the removal of the building and the placing of the same
<br /> upon the' lot on Airline Boulevard, and the conditions imposed by the city officials appear to have been complied
<br /> with, and I was unable to find where the position of the building as it sets,~ on the lot, violates any ordinance."
<br />
<br /> Motion of ~r. Baker to suspend the rules ~o hear from W.B. Spong, representing
<br /> proper~y owners on Airline Boulevard, or adjacent thereto.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Spong spoke, requesting some action concerning the removal of this building
<br />
<br /> at 1109 Airline Boulevard.
<br />
<br />H.L. Goodmau and Charles L. Reynolds also spoke on this ma5ter.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Howard that this matter be tabled until the ~ext meeting of the
<br />Council, with the understanding that the lawyers will get together and try to work this matter out.
<br />
<br />56-207 - The following ordinance was presented by the City Attorney:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND RE-ORDAIN SECTION 32-36 OF THE CODE OF THE
<br />CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, 1951, RELATING TO USE REGULATIONS IN G COMMERCIAL
<br />DISTRICTS"
<br />
<br />
<br />
|