|
237
<br />
<br />September 2?th, 19S5,
<br />
<br />by the following vote:
<br />
<br />and read:
<br />
<br />~es: Duke, B~ker, Bilisoly, Grimes, Hawks, Howard, Lawrence, Smith, Warren, Wilson
<br />
<br />Nays:
<br />
<br />55-220 - The following ordins~ce$, pissed on first reading at last meeting,route taken up
<br />
<br />"AN OP. DII~C~ TO A~I~ND A]~ RE-ORDAIN SECTION 1=20 OF Trt~ CODE OF THE CITY OF
<br />PORTSHOUTH, ~IEGINIA, 1951, RELATING TO ELECTION DISTRICTS AND PRECINCTS"
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND RE-ORDAIN SECTION 1-21 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
<br />PORTSH0bTI4 VIRGINIA, 1951, RELATING T~ELECTION DISTRICTS AND PRECINCTS"
<br />
<br />0~ motion of ~r. HoWard, said or~3_~an~asw~e adopt6d and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayg~: Duke, Baker~ Bilisoly,Grimes, Hawks, Howard, Lawrence, Smith, Warren, Wilson
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />Warren ~xcused.
<br />
<br />and rea~:
<br />
<br />55-224 -
<br />
<br />The following drdinance, placed on firsf reading a~t last meeting, was taken up
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO ~ THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSk~OIF]~ 1951 BY ADDING THERETO
<br /> A NEW SECTION TO BE KNOWN'AS SECTION 17-47 'SOLICITATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES'w
<br />
<br />Hotion of Fir. Baker to suspend the rules to hear from anyone iht erested, in this ordinance,l
<br />
<br />was adopted.
<br />
<br /> Charles tfigginbotham~ representing the National Foundation of the March of Dimes, spoke
<br />opposing the adoption of this ordinance.
<br />
<br />W.B. ~'pong spoke for the ordinance'.
<br />
<br />On mention of Nr. ~ilisoly, ssid ordinance was adopted and hy the followin~ vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Duke, Baker~ Bilisoly, Gr~mes~ ~awks, ~oward, La~'~:lce-, Smith~ils~
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />and read:
<br />
<br />55-235 -
<br />
<br />The following ordi~ence, placed on firs~ reading a~ last meeting, was taken up:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO A~END THE LICENSE TAX ODINANCE OF T~E CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
<br />BY ADDING TO CHAPTER II A NEW SECTION TO BE NU~BERE~ I0.I, RELATING TO SALE
<br />OF COUPONS"
<br />
<br />On motion of )ir. Smith, said ordinance was adopted sad by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes --Duke, Baker, Bilis'oly, Grimes, Hawks, Howamd, L~wrence, Smith, Wilson
<br />Nays - Non~
<br />
<br />- NEW BUSINESS -
<br />
<br />55-245 - The following letter from the City Attorney was read:
<br />
<br /> "At your last meeting, you referred to me for my opinion 'the qnestic~ of the requirement
<br />of a three-fourths vote by the Council under Article ~1 Section 3Z-78 of the City Code, in reference to rezoning
<br />lots 3,4, 5 and 8, block ~5, northwest corner of Airline Turnpike and Hamilton Avenue'.
<br /> I find that Section lS-823 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, provides: 'Such regulations,
<br />restrictions and boundaries may from time to time be emended, supplemented, changed, modified or repealed. In
<br />case, however, of a protest against any such proposed change signed by the owners of twenty per centum or more
<br />either of the area of the lots included in such proposed chsage, or of those adjacent in the rear thereof, or of
<br />those directly opposite ~hereto, such amendment shall not become effective except hy the favorable vote of three-
<br />fourths of all the mem~0ers o_f the Cosacil or other governing body of such city or town.'
<br /> The city ordinance is in accordance ~ith the Code section and section 32-78 of the City
<br />Code provides: 'The City ~ouncil may, from time to time~ on its ovr~ motion or on petition, after pubikic notice
<br />and hearing as r~qlxired~i~w and after report by the City Planning Coz~ission, ~mend, supplement or change the
<br />district boundaries or r~Eulations herein or subsequently established. In case ~[he owners of twenty per Eent or
<br />more either of the area of the lots included in such propose~ change, or of those immediately adjacent in the rear
<br />thereof, or of those directly opposite tl~reto present a pro~es~ duly signed and acknowIe~ged against such change
<br />such amendment shall not become effective excepz by the favorable vo~e of three-fourths of al1 the members of
<br />the Cit-yCounciI'.
<br /> When the recommendation of the Planning Co--w~ssionwas presented to the City Council at
<br />its meeting held on August 23, i955, ~o rezone the ares in question, a motion was made by Nit. Baker not to rezone
<br />the property sad on a record~ed vo~e four mem3~ers of the City Council voted for the metion and six me~fbers voted I
<br />against it. The presiding officer declared the motio~ was lost ~d that the recommendation of the Planning Cam -
<br />mission was adopted. An appeal was mede to the Cotmcil of the wholeto overrule the decision of the presiding
<br />office~ and this motion was lost.
<br /> The petition which was presented ~o the Council vras signed by a large number of l~eop~e
<br />but ~as not acknowledged by individual signers. The acknowledgmen~ before a Notary Public ~as by two persons to
<br />the effect that they saw the ottu~rs sign. It is doubtful whether this is in complisace with the city ordinance.
<br />~ost of the persons who signed the petition wer~ not owners of Iand wittkin the area in question or adjaeent ~o tile
<br />
<br />
<br />
|