|
Hon. ~ity Council,
<br />Portsmouth,-Va.
<br />
<br />"Portsmouth,
<br />
<br />Va., March 22, 192?.
<br />
<br />Gentlemen:
<br />
<br /> Enclosed is ~ letter from Nr. R. W. Peatross, City Attorney of Norfolk, which is
<br />self-explanatory. The matter of consolidation is now in the hands of the Finance Committee,
<br />concerning an appropriation and with the Special Consolidation Committee. I believe the
<br />question of changing the state ~w should be referred to the Committee~.o~Oons~lidation and
<br />re~orted back to the 0ounciA along with other matters..
<br />
<br />Yours very traly,
<br />
<br />R. 0. BAROLAY,
<br />
<br />City Attorney."
<br />
<br />The following is the enclosed letter:
<br />
<br />Mr. R.. O. Barclay,
<br />City Attorney,
<br />Portsmouth,
<br />
<br />"Norfolk, Vi~gimia, March 16, 1927.
<br />
<br />Dear Mm, Barclay:--
<br />
<br /> There"are, ~syou know, pending before the Oouncils~of Norfolk and Ports-
<br />mouth certain matters looking to a proposed consolidation of the two cities. Should any
<br />plans for such consolidation be worked cut which the two cities feel wouId be advanta~eoue,
<br />no consolidation could take place under the law as it now stands. Sections 2971 to 2971 (42)
<br />cover the entire question of consolidation of cities and towns. A reading of this chapter
<br />leads me to the conclusion' that if Section 2971 (~) were amended by striking out the last
<br />sentence, ,The provisions of this Act, however, shall not a~ply to cities ofmore than forty
<br />thousand and less than seventy-five thousand inhabitants,, ~t would leave the hands of Norfolk
<br />and Portsmouth untied in the event a consolldatio~ should be found desirable.
<br />
<br />Without the repeal of this provision the consolidation is prohibited.
<br />
<br /> ~ill you please discuss this matter with your people and advise me as
<br />promptly as.possible w~eth~rhthe repeal of this sentence would be recommended to the members
<br />of the.. Legislature ~ yourOouncil. ! do not suppose the Norfolk Council Would suggest the
<br />a~endment of this statute without the ia~ll approval of your Council.
<br />
<br /> I m, ill':appreciate your letting me have the views of your people on this
<br />subject a~ as eamly a~ date as practicable.
<br />
<br />~ours very
<br />
<br />R. W. PEATROSS, City-Attorney,,
<br />
<br /> On motion of Er. Oast, the communications were referred to the Council committee~ on
<br />Consolidation.
<br />
<br />The following report w~s read from the City Attorney:
<br />
<br />Hon. City Council,
<br />Portsmouth, Va.
<br />
<br />~Portsmouth, Va.,
<br />
<br />March 22, 1927.
<br />
<br />Gentlemen,--
<br />
<br /> At your last meeting you r~quested me to report whether an existing ordinance
<br />adopted by the Oouncil on July 27, 1~26, and entitled, 'An Ordinance prohibiting the erection
<br />of certain ctasses~of~bulldings or the ai~eration'of existi~buildings for certain uses on
<br />any sitea which has no~ been approved by the City Council of the City of Portsmouth; prescrib-
<br />lng methods of issuing permits for such erection or alteration and imposing penalttes for vi-
<br />olations thereof, is ~oplicable to the Portsmouth Gas Company.
<br />
<br /> This ordinance provides: 'That no building of the following classes shall-be
<br />erected or altered for use in whole or in part for any of the occupancies indicated until the
<br />site on which said bu~ildimg ie to be erected or which is occupied by the building tO be alter-
<br />edemas been approved by the 0omncii of zhe Oity of Portsmouth., And then in the enumeration
<br />of the cla~ses of ~uildimgs includes 'Gas plants or tanks of over 5,000 cubic feet capacity.'
<br />
<br /> There is another provision in the ordinance which reads as follows: 'Provided,
<br />further, this ordinance shall not apply to a~y prohibited structure aleady erected or in ope-
<br />~ation, or under contract or in the course cf erection.,
<br />
<br /> In my opinion the ordinance applies to the Portsmouth Gas 0ompany and the tank
<br />which it desires to erect is mmt included in the exception.
<br />
<br />Yours very truly,
<br />
<br /> R. C. BARCLAy, 0ityAttorney."
<br />On motion of Mr. Stewart, the report was ordere~ to be ~ilod.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|