Minutes 05/12/1959 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 TUES DAY If JAY 12 L 1959 VHlERF.AS, Irving Vi[. Ramsey, caused a petition to be filed with the City of Martinsville, Virginia, asking that a certain portion of Zee Street described upon the map annexed to the petition be closed; and \i1fHEREAS, from the attached notice it appears th2.t there were duly posted as required by Section 15-766 of the C ode of Virginia of 1950 as amended notices of a hearing in regard to such petition; NOW, T}lEREFOP.E, the Council of the City of Martimvillc does appoint the following named citizens of the City of Martimville to view that portion of said street to be discontinued and to repcrt l.mto the Council their findings with a special regard to whether or not any i~ orrvenience will result to abutting property mmers from the aban.donment of that portion of said street proposed to be vacated as set out in said petition. J. IL Walker I. VI. Groves, Sr. J. R. Troxler In connection with the petition, Council received from Mr. J. E. Hill the foll~ving statement in response thereto: IN RE: VACATION OF PORTION OF ZEE STREET TO CITY COUNCIL OF :MARTINSVILIE RESPONSE TO PETITION DATED April 14, 1959 Respondent, J. E. Hill, in response to a petition filed herein on the 14th day of April, 1959, answers and says: (1) That, like your retitioner, your respondent is also an mmer of certain real property abutting upon that portion of Zee Street which is. the subject metter of the petition. (2) That your respondents' property is improved, consisting of a brick residence, garage and lot. That said lot abutts upon that portion of Zee Street which is the subject matter of the petition far a distance of two hundred tVlenty-two (222) feet. (3) That your respondent emphatically denies that the subject portion of Zee Street does not serve any useful purpose, alleging to the contrary that your respondent frequently uses this street which affords access to the side and rear of the aforementioned lot, the westerly side of Jefferson street, Stratford Court and the City Park, and has frequently observed others using this street. Your respondent further alleges that the subject portion of Zee Street has been utilized less than would have otheI'1vise been the case because of certain encroachments and barriers which have been privately and unlawfully been erected and permitted to exist therein from time to time during the past three years.