Laserfiche WebLink
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 <br />A regular semi-monthly meeting of the Council of the City of <br />Martinsville, Virginia, with Mayor Allan McClain presiding, was held <br />Tuesday, September 28, 1993 at Albert Harris Elementary School <br />beginning at 7:30 P.M. All members of Council were present: Allan <br />McClain, Mayor; George B. Adams, Jr., Vice-Mayor; Steve M. Draper; L.D. <br />Oakes; and Clyde L. Williams. <br /> <br />After the invocation, followed by Mayor McClain's cordial welcome to <br />visitors present, Council approved the minutes of its September 14, <br />1993 meeting as circulated. <br /> <br />Council considered adoption, on second reading, of Ordinance No. 93-14 <br />amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City Code. A motion was made and <br />seconded to adopt the Ordinance on second reading. At this point, <br />Mayor McClain read the following statement: <br /> <br />Before we vote to adopt, on second reading, the amendment to our <br />Zoning Ordinance which would authorize the termination of <br />grandfathered non-conforming uses which involve the transportation <br />or temporary storage of hazardous waste, I would like to make a <br />brief statement. <br /> <br />As most of you know, before we adopted this amendment on first <br />reading, we held an Executive Session with our City Attorney, Mr. <br />Worthy, during which he emphasized his concerns about the <br />enforceability of this portion of our Zoning Ordinance if the <br />amendment were adopted. Perhaps that discussion would have been <br />better focused if the concerns had been expressed concerning the <br />applicability of this amendment to the use by ETS of the R. P. <br />Thomas Trucking Co. terminal for the temporary storage of <br />hazardous waste rather than to the enforceability of the amendment <br />in general. In general, I believe the amendment is enforceable. <br /> <br />However, under the amendment, in order to terminate the non- <br />conforming use, the City Council must determine that the use, <br />"...poses a clear and present threat to the health and safety of <br />surrounding residential homeowners living immediately adjacent to <br />such non-conforming use." In Mr. Worthy's opinion, for one to be <br />living "'immediately adjacent" to the non-conforming use, the <br />homeowner must live on property upon which the non-conforming use <br />exists. Thus, persons living across the street or down the block <br />are not the subject of the amendment. <br /> <br /> <br />