Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~oo <br /> <br />MONDAY <br /> <br />NOVEMBER 18, 1963 <br /> <br />Also cited were the recommended requirements as to l'yard requirements" and <br /> <br />as to "signs", the petitioners protesting these as being impracticable. <br /> <br />Citizens speaking in behalf of themselves and/or their interest, protesting <br /> <br />against specific portions of the proposed code and/or requesting different <br /> <br />zoning classifications from those recommended, were: <br /> <br />1. Mr. W. R. Critz, of Martinsville Machine Works; <br />2. Mr. Harry Tuggle, of Martinsville Coca-Cola Co~pany; <br />3. Mr. George L. Nease; <br />4. Mr. Walker H. Graves, of Graves Supply Company; <br />5. Mr. N. R. Burroughs, for self and behalf of the First Baptist Church; <br />6. Mr. William F. Carter; <br />7. Mr. Joseph Pritchett, for High Street Baptist Church; <br />8. Mr. James F. Hodentt; <br />9. Mr. Frank B. Hill; <br />10. Mr. Nathan Bushnell, Administrator, Martinsville General Hospital; <br />11. Mr. George Lester, of Lester Lumber Company, Inc.; <br />12. Mr. J. Louis Beckner; and <br />13. Mr. William B. Muse, for Community Hospital and st. Paul's Church. <br /> <br />Speaking specifically to the section on signs and outdoor advertising were <br /> <br />Mr. James C. Lawrence, on behalf of self, and Mr. Leonard Trester, on behalf of <br /> <br />La}1ar Dean Outdoor Advertising Company and other associated firms, with Mr. Trester <br /> <br />suggesting the following changes: <br /> <br />Page 26 - No.5 -- C-3 District <br /> <br />Delete present sub-paragraph C(1) and C(2) and insert in lieu <br />thereof the following: <br />l1Maintains the front and side yard requirements as <br />provided for other structures in this district <br />except signs designed to overhang a side walk area;lI. <br /> <br />Delete c(3) and C(4) and re-number (5) to read 11(2)11 and all <br />following consecutively. <br /> <br />COMMENT <br /> <br />The above suggestions are submitted in order to place all signs, <br />accessory and non-accessory, under the Slliile regulations. Since <br />a statement in the ordinance classifies all signs as business <br />uses, it seems only reasonable to request that signs be accorded <br />the same treatment as other business uses. There seems to be no <br />valid reason from the standpoint of public health, safety, or <br /> <br />",..",.., ..".."".,..,',..,,",....""'.."'_.._"'''''_,~.,.__..,'''''''_,,.....__'_.~,_..-""'"".,...'.,""...""...,"'"._..""..'..'N <br />