My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes 06/13/1972
City-of-Martinsville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1972
>
Minutes 06/13/1972
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/20/2006 4:15:17 PM
Creation date
12/20/2006 4:05:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Meeting Date
6/13/1972
City Council - Category
Minutes
City Council - Type
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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 />~e <br /> <br />TUESDAY <br /> <br />JUNE 13, 1972 <br /> <br />BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Martinsville, Virginia, <br />in regular meeting assembled this thirteenth day of June, 1972, that <br />Paragraph "F" of Section VI of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of <br />Martinsville, Virginia, be--and is hereby--amended to provide that <br />the minimum building set-back requirements on that section of Moss <br />Street between Church Street and Fayette Street shall be at least <br />five feet on both the east side and the west side of said section. <br /> <br />Pursuant to duly-advertised public notice, Council proceeded to conduct a <br /> <br />public hearing on Mr. H. Grady Moore's November 23rd (1971) petition requesting <br /> <br />the rezoning of his property identified as Lot No.2, on the souths ide of <br /> <br />Starling Avenue and Forest Street, from "R-6" to "C-2"; however, upon being <br /> <br />advised that petitioner wishes to withdraw his request, said hearing was <br /> <br />discontinued and the withdrawal request was granted. <br /> <br />Pursuant to duly-advertised public notice, Council conducted a public hearing <br /> <br />on a proposal--recommended by the Planning Commission--to amend sections <br /> <br />(hereinafter identified) of the City's Zoning Ordinance relating to residential <br /> <br />structures and/or apartment buildings designed to accommodate more than eight <br /> <br />family housekeeping units. In response to an inquiry concerning this proposal, <br /> <br />with a suggestion that Council delay consideration thereof, and to another <br /> <br />proposal recently filed by Daniel L. Manson, Attorney at Law, having to do with <br /> <br />density requirements and now before the Planning Commission, Mr. Manson urged <br /> <br />Council's immediate action on the matter for public hearing, stating that the <br /> <br />two proposals have no relevancy and that no good purpose would be served in <br /> <br />deferring action on matter under public-hearing consideratiDn. Mr. William B. <br /> <br />Muse appeared before Council and questioned the "floor" or restriction of <br /> <br />eight such units, expressing the opinion that not only would such restriction <br /> <br />make more difficult the attempts by private enterprise to provide better housing <br /> <br />for the low-to-moderate income population segment, which is in need of this kind <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.