My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes 02/28/1986
City-of-Martinsville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1986
>
Minutes 02/28/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2006 3:54:01 PM
Creation date
11/1/2006 2:25:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Meeting Date
2/28/1986
City Council - Category
Minutes
City Council - Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />2~~ 8 <br /> <br />FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1986 <br /> <br />In accordance with the requirements of Section 5 of Chapter 2 of the City's Charter, <br /> <br />a special and duly-called meeting of the Council of the City of Martinsville, Vir- <br /> <br />ginia, was held Friday, February 28, 1986, in the Council Chamber, City Hall, begin- <br /> <br />ning at 3:00 P.M., for the purpose of considering City Attorney David B. Worthy's <br /> <br />opinion on--and interpretation of--Section 15.1-492 of the CODE OF VIRGINIA (1950, <br /> <br />and as amended), regarding unimpaired vested rights as they relate to the signs sec- <br /> <br />tion of the City's Zoning Ordinance and, particularly, to the application of non- <br /> <br />conformity of signs and uses within the City. Members of Council present were The <br /> <br />Honorable William C. Cole, Jr., Mayor and Presiding Officer, and Messrs. Alfred T. <br /> <br />Groden, L. D. Oakes, and Clyde L. Williams. The only other member of Council, Mrs. <br /> <br />Eliza H. Severt, Vice-Mayor, was absent, being away from the City, because of a <br /> <br />prior commitment. <br /> <br />After Mayor Cole extended a cordial welcome to visitors present, followed by his <br /> <br />stating the purpose of this special meeting, Council reviewed with City Attorney <br /> <br />Worthy his written opinion, as cited hereinbefore, which stated that" .......the <br /> <br />requirement in the 1980 sign ordinance that every sign erected before the adoption <br /> <br />thereof 'be brought into compliance, in all respects, to the provisions of this ordi- <br /> <br />nance within five years from the effective date' thereof, is void. It contravenes <br /> <br />the provisions of Section 15.1-492 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. This <br /> <br />statute provides that no zoning ordinance 'shall be construed to authorize the im- <br /> <br />pairment of any vested right' and that any structures and uses thereof which do not <br /> <br />conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance may continue 'so long as the then- <br /> <br />existing . <br /> <br />use continues', and 'so long as the buildings or structures are main- <br /> <br />tained in their then structural condition." Such buildings or structures shall be <br /> <br />required to conform to the new regulations only when they are 'enlarged, extended, <br /> <br />reconstructed or structurally altered...' The effect of this is to grandfather in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.