Minutes 08/23/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

367 August 23, 1983 tion in the downtown area as places of religious worship is not compatible or in accordance with the proposed use as well as the purpose of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. Such use w.ill~adv~rsely affect the development of the area and prove to be detrimental and injuriou~ to the proposed improvements to property in the neighborhood. I, therefore, would recommend that the City Council deny the request for each of the use permits." 83-172 - Use Permit Applications: (a) Use Permit UP 83-3 - Application of Faith Deliverance Center, by Pastor Olive C. BroWn, for a church at 608 ~ffingham Street, deferred from the meeting of June 28, 1983. Motion of Mr. Whitlow and seconded by Mr. Gray, to deny. Substitute motion of Mr. Beamer and sec~onded by Mr. Barnes, to defer for~the City Manager be permitted time to talk with parties involved and report back to Council at the next meeting (September 13, 1983), and was adopted by 4-3(Gray, Webb, Whitlow-Nay) vote. (b) Use Permit UP 83-4 - Application of Max Markman, by Pastor Clarence H. Singetary, for a church service center at 4S9 Effingham Street, deferred from the meeting of June 28, 1983. Motion of Mr. Holley and seconded by Mr. Beamer, to defer for the City Manager be per- mitted time to talk with parties involved and report back to Council at the next meeting (September 13, 1983), and was adopted by 4-3(Gray, Webb, Whitlow-Nay) vote. 83-225 (a) Use Permit UP 83-5 - Application of Dr. HUgo A, Owens, by Pastor Leroy Daniels, Jr., for a church at 610 Green Street, deferre from the meeting of June 28, 1983. Pastor Zeroy Daniels, Jr., 2802 Portsmouth Boulevard, representing Gilead Baptist Church, spoke regarding the leasing of the property, and stated that a lease had been submitted to the City Attorney's office to this effect, and did not agree that his application should be treated as UP 83-3 g 4. Motion of Mr. Whitlow and sesonded by Mr. Barnes, UP 83-5 be deferred to the next meeting (September 13, 1983~,and was adopted by unanimous vote. REPORTS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 83-320 Letter from the City Manager recommending appropriation of $35,000, as identifie in the 1982-83 Capital Improvement Program, for the purchase of modern signal equipment to im- prove traffic flow on High Street between Frederick Boulevard and the Churchland Bridge, and to implement improvements to selected intersections, including Frederick Boulevard at Turnpike Road and London Boulevard at Effingham Street. "The adopted 1983-87 Capital Improvement Program included an authorization of $35,000 in FY 82-83 for traffic signal improvements. The Director of Planning, Engineering and Inspections has requested that these funds be appropriated to purchase modern signal equipment to improve traffic flow on High Street between Frederick Boulevard and the Churchland Bridge, and to implement improvements to selected intersections, including Frederick Boulevard at Turnpike Road and London Boulevard at Effingham Street. Attached is the necessary ordinance to accomplish this task and I recommend its aooroval on first reading. On motion of Mr. Beamer and Seconded by Mrs. Webb, the following ordinance was approved on first reading, and by unanimous vone: "AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $35,000 FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT." 83-321 Letter from the City Manager recommending adoption of an ordinance to levy a service charge on proper~y owned ~y the Virginia Port Authority as set forth in Section 58.16.1 of the Code of Virginia. "In its 1982 session, the General Assembly passed legislation to take effect in 1984, ~hich enables localities to enact an ordinance levying a service charge on property owned by the Virginia Port Authority (VPA). The service charge is based on a percentage of the previous year's expenditure for police and fire protection, adjusted for Federal and State grant contributions. I have attached for your information an example of the~ calculations to be used to determine the amount of revenue to be derived~om this program. This example is for illustrative purposes as the actn~l pay- ment beginning in FY 1985 will be determined using the 1983-84 fiscal year expenditure and assessment figures. Under this program we can anticipate an estimated $76,120 in revenue for next y6ar which represents 44% 6f the real estate tax if the facilities were privately owned. By comparison, Sealand Services, Inc., a orivate ~organization, pays the City approximately $200,000 oer year, ipcluding real estate and other ta~xes, on a parcel much smaller than owned by the EPA. We, therefore, need to conzinue our efiforts to obtain full tax equalization on all tax exempt pro- perty mn the City. While this is ~a significant step forward and certainly represents a be- ginning towards equity, it is a fa:r cry from true ecualization.