Laserfiche WebLink
<br />AUGUST 10, 1982 <br /> <br />TUESDAY <br /> <br />of a reduction by the State of Virginia in services formerly provided such patients, for <br /> <br />whom no rehabilitation is likely except through a new program (advocated by the State of <br /> <br />Virginia), which would provide a home-like atmosphere, such as Dr. Leizer proposed, whereby <br /> <br />such citizens can eventually return to the main-stream of life. Mr. John W. Swezey, Attorney <br /> <br />at Law, appeared before Council on behalf of his clients, Mr. W. T. Turner (of Turner, <br /> <br />Shelton & Midkiff, Inc.,) and Dr. Norman Warren, owners of adjacent properties, in opposition <br /> <br />to the rezoning request, questioning whether the proposed usage of the Davis property is <br /> <br />permissible under the City's P-2 zoning regulations and, too, claiming that the proposed <br /> <br />usage would not be compatible with the professional-usage character of the neighborhood, <br /> <br />properties within which (formerly residential properties), through rezoning and extensive <br /> <br />renovations, are now occupied by tax-paying professional business firms. Concerns were also <br /> <br />expressed by the opponents as to whether their clients would have some hesitancy about <br /> <br />visiting or calling upon the neighboring professional firms as well as about the additional <br /> <br />traffic the proposed rehabilitation facility might generate. In conclusion, Mr. Swezey <br /> <br />requested that Council deny petitioner's rezoning request or, in order that further study <br /> <br />might be given this matter to provide answers to many "unknowns", that Council postpone <br /> <br />action on this petition. In response, Dr. Leizer assured the Council that not only would <br /> <br />the would-be patients of the facility be carefully screened before being accepted for <br /> <br />rehabilitation, in order that quietude of the neighborhood be maintained, but also such <br /> <br />patients would be transported to and from the facility in a van and, therefore, no addit- <br /> <br />ional motor vehicle traffic would be generated. No objections were raised by anyone against <br /> <br />the goals and purpose of such a rehabilitation facility; rather, as Councilman West suggested, <br /> <br />a more suitable or more acceptable site might be found elsewhere. In response to Councilman <br /> <br />West's motion (duly seconded) that Council table this matter and to Councilman West's sub- <br /> <br />sequent motion (duly seconded) to withdraw his first motion and substitute therefor a motion <br /> <br />to delay action for a period of not less than two weeks nor more than tHO months, during <br />