Laserfiche WebLink
<br />)4 <br /> <br />TUESDAY <br /> <br />MAY 10, 1983 <br /> <br />so doing, adopted the following ordinance amending the City's Zoning Map to the <br /> <br />extent of effecting said requested "P-2 Professional" zoning of this property: <br /> <br />BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Martinsville, Virginia, <br />in regular meeting assembled this tenth day of May, 1983, that the <br />Zoning Map of the City of Martinsville be--and is hereby--amended to <br />reclassify from "R-6 Residential" to "P-2 Professional" that certain <br />property located at 311 Starling Avenue and identified as Lot No. 25, <br />Section 43, of the Tax Map of the City of Martinsville, Virginia. <br /> <br />An emergency existing, this ordinance shall be in force on and after <br />May 10, 1983. <br /> <br />In tentative acceptance of the Planning Commission's recommendations that the City's <br /> <br />Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows, Council called for a duly advertised public <br /> <br />hearing to be conducted by Council thereon at its forthcoming May 24th meeting: <br /> <br />1. Amend Sub-Paragraph 1 of Paragraph K of Section V (C-2 <br />Commercial District, CBD) to exclude those uses set forth <br />in Sub-Paragraph 2 of Paragraph J in the C-1A Commercial <br />District, to permit all types of amusement enterprises in <br />the C-2 Commercial District except shooting galleries and <br />roller rinks; and <br /> <br />2. Amend Sub-Paragraph 1 of Paragraph A of Section VI to <br />include (within the table) requirements for the P-2 Pro- <br />fessional zone, the C-1A, C-2 and C-3 Commercial zones, <br />and the M-2 Industrial zone, to make the table under <br />said Sub-Paragraph 1 as comprehensive as possible regard- <br />ing general dimension requirements. <br /> <br />By letter dated May 10, 1983, as a continuation of his request filed with Council <br /> <br />at its regular meeting held April 26, 1983, seeking a reclassification of Section <br /> <br />3-4 of the City Code on behalf of his client, Mrs. Margaret S. Trent, Attorney <br /> <br />Benjamin R. Gardner asked Council to seek the opinion of City Attorney Worthy as <br /> <br />to the legality of the distinction set out in said Section 3-4 and (then) act <br /> <br />accordingly to remedy the problem. Mr. Gardner also maintained that this "remote" <br /> <br />ordinance has resulted in a criminal charge against Mrs. Trent (recently charged <br />