Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1( <br /> <br />MONDAY <br /> <br />NOVEMBER 30-, 1959 <br /> <br />to provide that that parcel of land owned by the c. Y. Thomas Estate <br />and situated on the west side of Brookda1e Street between properties <br />owned by the Sallie Early Estate and Mr. V. E. Wray and, also, the <br />adjacent V. E. Wray lot be and are hereby rezoned from "A-l Residential" <br />to "B_1 Business"; ani <br /> <br />BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that there is hereby established a building <br />setback of forty (40) feet for said rezoned properties, measured from <br />the centerlim of Brookda1e Street. <br /> <br />,- <br /> <br />By report dated November 12, 1959, a Board of Viewers (composed of :Messrs. Irvi~ <br />M. Groves, J. Reid Troxler, and J. Robert Walker) informed Council as follows: <br /> <br />Your undersigned three viewers, appointed by the Coumil to consider <br />the c losing of a portion of an alleyway runnill?; from Thomas Heights <br />to a point on Jefferson Street, do report that they have been to the <br />scene and viewed the alley in question. <br /> <br />It is the opinion of this committee that the public generally would <br />not be affected by either the closing or the opening of this alley; <br />however, the alley could serve a useful purpose to the property <br />abutting it. <br /> <br />Your viewers in reaching a decision took cognizance of the objections <br />of several of these property owmrs and of the fact that the closing <br />of either end of the alley would create a dead end situation which <br />would not be in the best interest of these owners. Therefore, it is <br />the opinion of your viewers that this alley should not be closed as <br />has been petitioned. <br /> <br />,"-'" <br /> <br />Attorney Robert H. May, representing the petitioners (see Cour:cil minutes of <br />April 14, 1959; May 12, 1959; and May 21, 1959 re: Matson-Dent petition), stated <br />that in his opinion the Board of Viewers had not complied with Section 15-766 of <br /> <br />the Code of V:1rginia and, furthermore, requested that the report be disregarded <br /> <br />and that a new board be appointed to perform the duties outlined in said Section <br />15-766. Coumil voted to take the report and petition under advisement, pending <br /> <br />a joint confereree with the Board of Viewers and the property OW'ners involved. <br /> <br />Council briefly discussed its appearance on November 24th before the State Water <br /> <br />Control Board at which meeting Coureil reviewed with the Board the City's <br /> <br />Sewerage System Improvements Program. <br />