THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, March 5, 1995 TAG: 9503030158
SECTION: PORTSMOUTH CURRENTS PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
COLUMN: Ida Kay's Portsmouth
SOURCE: Ida Kay Jordan
LENGTH: Medium: 72 lines
Several incidents recently have proved the wisdom of taking time for public hearings and of requiring more than one vote on some items on the City Council agenda.
They also raise a question: Why doesn't somebody brief City Council on the whole picture before council gets into a bind?
At times information that comes out during a second discussion of an item causes council members to change their minds. While some criticize those who switch the votes, I generally feel better about council members when they have the gumption to change their minds.
I think that shows they are paying attention to the speakers.
An item up for reconsideration Tuesday was a case in point.
It involves a use permit to allow a church to meet in a a commercial building on Afton Square in Cradock.
Council members have spent a lot of time on this one. At the first reading several weeks ago, they muddled around about how to accommodate the applicant, David Alexander. Alexander gave a smooth pitch about wanting to let his Abundant Life church meet in the storefront he owns. A council majority agreed to and voted for a use permit that would designate the building for church on Fridays and Saturdays and religious holidays. Alexander said the neighborhood loved his church.
But Tuesday an entirely different story emerged before the use permit was scheduled for a final vote.
A number of Cradock property owners were critical of Alexander, saying he had exhibited ``blatant disregard'' for the city's regulations and for the Cradock Historic District.
Jean Butler, a member of the property owners association, said he and his church members had ``manipulated'' a meeting of the group at which his project was endorsed. Several of the critics reported that some people had been brought to the property owners meeting, given membership forms with money attached to join the association.
It was ``carefully orchestrated,'' Butler said.
Council's original concern about the use permit was a longstanding policy of not permitted any more storefront churches.
``This is a storefront church, no matter how you mask it,'' Butler told council.
However, the kicker came when Dottie Wyatt spoke.
``I think everybody should meet all of the city's requirements,'' she said. ``There is no business license issued for 53 Afton Square.''
Alexander had told council that he used the space for his own business and that the church's use would be incidental to the business. Now it turns out, there's no license for a business at that address.
Furthermore, then-acting City Attorney George Wilson, said the limitations of two days and holidays on the use permit are ``unenforceable.''
``We need to delete that from the resolution,'' Wilson said.
Such a deletion would, in effect, make the storefront a church.
Faced with Wilson's ruling as well as the new information, most especially that there was no business license for the site in question, council backed away from the final vote.
The use permit will be considered again in two weeks.
What really should concern council is that a person not in compliance with all city regulations could reach the final voting stage of getting a use permit.
Especially shocking is the fact that he could get so far without having a business license for the business that he claims to operate - and that was the main point of his justification for getting the use permit.
Somebody in some city department should check out such routine matters for all rezoning and use permits requested anywhere in the city. by CNB