Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ill:: <br />.:-1 .u <br /> <br />WEDNESDAY <br /> <br />SEPTEMBER 14, 1977 <br /> <br />Mr. George L. Nease, of 1236 Sam Lion Trail, long associated with grocery supermarket <br /> <br />operations and property development in Martinsville, brought to Council's attention that <br /> <br />a new supermarket, such as proposed under Lanier Farm's "Site 2" plan, would generate <br /> <br />some $60,000.00 per year in "new" tax revenue for the City, excluding any profit the <br /> <br />City might derive through its utility sales. <br /> <br />Several other citizens present commented on various aspects of the proposed development, <br /> <br />including questions as to whether the Lanier Farm "Site 2" development would pose any <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />sanitation problems or any problem as to the City's ability to continue providing <br /> <br />satisfactory electric service (that is, without "brownouts"), to which specific <br /> <br />questions there was indicated no anticipation of any such problems. <br /> <br />At the conclusion of this public hearing, after opportunity had been given everyone <br /> <br />to speak to this subject, Attorney Epperly, on behalf of his client(s), reiterated his <br /> <br />position and request(s), as hereinbefore set forth; and, furthermore, in response to <br /> <br />direct questioning, stated that the filing of the Roycroft petition was not a "protest" <br /> <br />to the Lanier Farm rezoning petition nor was it intended as a "delaying action" thereon; <br /> <br />rather, again insisting that the Roycroft petition be referred to the Planning Commission <br /> <br />and that the usual procedures be followed thereon before Council takes action on the <br /> <br />Lanier Farm petition, Mr. Epperly indicated that (on behalf of his client), should Council <br /> <br />fail to refer the Roycroft petition to the Planning Commission, he might pursue whatever <br /> <br />recourse is felt necessary to compel the referral as requested. <br /> <br />Following some discussion by various members of Council (with Councilman West taking no <br /> <br />part therein or in any of the foregoing proceedings) of various points brought out in this <br /> <br />hearing, Councilman Greene offered the following summary statement: <br /> <br />In considering the arguments presented in this case, City Attorney Worthy <br />has advised that matters affecting the health, welfare and general safety of <br />the public are valid considerations, but that controllable factors such as <br />rats which are covered under City ordinances are not grounds to deny a request <br />for rezoning. As I see it, the major issues to consider in this rezoning request <br />