Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05081952 ZPC Minutes1 t7TT~iTTFS OF h~~'ITI,AR r.~;ETI~~G Znr~TING ~~ Yz,nr~NZNG Ban_~~ i,~ItY 8, 1952 The Zoning and }Manning Board convened in regular session at the City Hall on Thursday, ~,'ay t3, 1.452, 7:30 P.a`--. with the follotiving members present; ~kar. Koy ivaaley, presiding; ,~essrs. Goff, Fa',oss and ktiggs. ::°1r. Morris was absent. ~ request from the Trunkline Clas Company for permission to erect a small cover for tools and materials was submitted to the Board. It was explained in a letter signed by r,"r. S. ~. Taylor, Vice President and Treasurer-for Tr~znkline t'sas Company, that the proposed shed would be located on the Southwest corner of Tract "A" ;uenby Court and would be 25 feet in length and. five feet in width. ~~aotion by ear. N,iggs, seconded by 11r. +Ioss that the request df the Trunkline Gas Company for permission to erect a 25 X > foot shod at the Southwest corner of Tract "A" ~uenby Court be denied as it would be a violation of Section lI~ and. Section 29, Ordinance number 111, which designates a 2U foot buffer zone for protection of the residents immediately in the rear of the business area. 1 Voting Aye; All Voting No None The Board discussed the advisability of requiring erection of a brick wall as a b~zf~'er zone between business property and residental property and took the following actions ?lotion b;~r I~.ar. Riggs, seconded by rear. C7off that the Zoning Board recommend to the City Council that an opinion be obtained Pram the City l~ttorney as to the validity of an ordinance requiring that when a building is erected on business property that a brick, masonry or reinforced concrete wall E feet high and ~ inches thick be constructed on that property line where it is adjacent to or contiguous d=nith a residential area, Vaith due regard however to easements, with vievr of a possible recommendation from the 4oning Board requiring such brick, masonry or reinforced concrete wall, as a buffer between all business districts; in event such ordinance would not be valid, for the purpose of creating an additional buf'fier between business and residential it is recommended. that the City Attorney be requested to render an opinion whether such regi.zirement passed by Ordin~±nce would be valid for the purpose of afire wall under the building code. iTOtin~ ~3'e ; A11 Voting PJo ; Plone ~~ J 43 1 ?With no further business to come before the Board at this time, the Rieeting was adjourned. CHATR~IAPd °~ /~~ SEC~ETAKY 1 ~~