Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3- <br /> <br />TUESDAY <br /> <br />MAY 23, 1972 <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />presented the proposal, informed Council that--as to the proposed location <br /> <br />site for the Probation House--he and his committee had no idea that there would <br /> <br />be any objections raised to the site when (and for sometime afterwards) <br /> <br />the site was selected, said selection having been made for reasons of its <br /> <br />proximity to allied facilities as well as to certain industries, and being <br /> <br />the most suitable available, assuring interested citizens that there is no cause <br /> <br />for concern as to alledged adverse environmental conditions. Several <br /> <br />members of the project committee, including Mrs. Robert E. Spilman and <br /> <br />Mr. Howard J. Beck, Jr., Attorney at Law, spoke in behalf of the project <br /> <br />as well as of the site selection, at the conclusion of which Council denied <br /> <br />petitioners' request that its April 25th action thereon be rescinded but <br /> <br />with Council urging that all interested parties consolidate their efforts <br /> <br />toward activating the proposed Probation House, hopefully with the approval <br /> <br />and support of all citizens, at such location as might be mutually agreed <br /> <br />upon. <br /> <br />Through its President (Mr. James D. Coleman, Jr.), the Martinsville-Henry <br /> <br />County Board of Realtors requested Council to postpone for sixty days its <br /> <br />decision on matters before the Council and the Planning Commission regarding <br /> <br />proposed amendments to the City's Zoning Code insofar as multi-family housing <br /> <br />construction and projects are involved. Attorneys Daniel L. Manson and <br /> <br />Douglas K. Frith, on behalf of several hundred property owners and citizens <br /> <br />residing in the Clearview Drive and Mulberry Road areas, urged Council and <br /> <br />the Planning Commission to proceed with duly-advertised public hearings on <br /> <br />such proposed amendments in order that their clients might have an opportunity <br /> <br />to be heard or, in lieu thereof, in effect direct that action by appropriate <br /> <br />City officials on any such projects be held in abeyance, pending final action <br /> <br />by Council on said proposed amendments. Mr. James H. Ford, Attorney at Law <br />