Laserfiche WebLink
J. 16 <br /> <br />TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1992 <br /> <br />Sec. 13-40. Going-out-of-business sale permits. <br /> <br /> (d) Duration; additional permits. Each special sale permit shall <br />be valid for a period of no longer than sixty (60) days, and any <br />extension of that time shall constitute a new special sale and shall <br />require an additional permit, inventory and fee. A maximum of one sixty <br />(60) day permit beyond the initial sixty-day permit may be granted <br />solely for the purpos~!.of liquidating only those goods contained in the <br />initial inventory list and which remain unsold. <br /> <br />Upon motion, duly seconded and byunanimous vote, Council approved, on <br />first reading, Ordinance No. 92-11 amending the Business, Professional <br />and Occupational License Tax Ordinance by adding Section 17 to Article <br />I--General Provisions, which would exempt non-profit organizations from <br />the Ordinance. <br /> <br />Council continued a public hearing on a request by Mike Lester on <br />behalf of Piedmont Construction Corporation to abandon an unimproved, <br />unnamed street space located on the east side of Stephens Street. The <br />Mayor explained that even though the property owners had worked out an <br />arrangement to trade certain portions of the street, the only proper <br />action of City Council would be to abandon the street space in <br />accordance with the provisions of State law, which provide that the <br />abandoned street space will be equally divided between the adjacent <br />property owners, who in this case were Mr. Lester and the Coca-Cola <br />Bottling Company. Councilman Oakes expressed concern that residents of <br />Oak Street who were initially opposed to the abandonment were not <br />present at this meeting. Mr. Reynolds affirmed that Council could take <br />no other action than to either approve or deny the proposed division of <br />the street space as provided under State law. Mr. W. R. Broaddus, III, <br />attorney for Mr. Lester, stated that his client was willing to divide <br />the property according to the agreement worked out by Council at the <br />last meeting at which this item was discussed, but that the City staff <br />and City Attorney had stated that this could not be done. Upon motion, <br /> <br /> <br />