Laserfiche WebLink
<br />110 <br /> <br />TUESDAY <br /> <br />MARCH 24. 1959 <br /> <br />The regular semi-monthly meeting of the Council of the City of Martinsville, <br />Virginia, with Mayor Jom W. Shultz presiding, was held in the Council Chamber, <br /> <br />City Hall, Tuesday, March 24, 1959, at 7:00 P.M., the following members being <br /> <br />present: Mayor and Councilman Jom W. Shultz; Vice-Hayor and Councilman E. E. <br /> <br />Stone; and Councilmen Rives S. Brown, Jr., and Thomas J. Burch. Councilman <br /> <br />Clarence C. Donavant was absent. <br /> <br />After the invocation, Council approved as read the minutes of its regular <br /> <br />meeting held March 10, 1959. Council then extended a warm welcome to members <br /> <br />of one of Martinsville High School's government classes, who appeared as guests <br /> <br />and observers. <br /> <br />Under date of March 24, 1959, the Planning Commission submitted the following report <br /> <br />and recommendation pertaining to the rezoning petition presented to Council March 10th <br /> <br />by Arthur Hooker Sales Company, Inc., which report recommended denial of the <br /> <br />petitioner's request: <br /> <br />Your Planning Commission, at its meeting on Wednesday, March 18, 1959, <br />considered a petition referred to it by Council. This petition was <br />submi tted by Mr. Arthur Hooker and requested the rezoning of property <br />owned by him between Brown Street and Mulberry Extension from A-1 <br />Residential to B-1 Business. <br /> <br />After due consideration of this petition it was the opinion of the <br />Commission that the interest of the petitioner could be better served <br />by delaying action in this matter pending the outcome of a proposed <br />new zonblg ordinance for the City. The petitioner, however, expressed <br />a desire to have action taken immediately, whereupon the Commission <br />voted unanimously to recommend to Council "that the petition for <br />rezoning be denied." <br /> <br />The Planning Commission, in making its decision, considered the <br />following: <br /> <br />1. That the B-1 Business classification, under the present zoning <br />ordinance, is broad in that intensive commercial use is allowed. <br /> <br />2. That the petitioner has no definite plans for business use of <br />his property. <br />