The Virginian-Pilot
                             THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT 
              Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: Wednesday, March 29, 1995              TAG: 9503290475
SECTION: LOCAL                    PAGE: B3   EDITION: FINAL 
SOURCE: BY SCOTT McCASKEY, STAFF WRITER 
                                             LENGTH: Short :   43 lines

JET SKI FACILITY PLAN RAISES HOT DEBATE BEFORE COUNCIL THE COUNCIL DEFERS ACTION ON THE REZONING ISSUE UNTIL APRIL 11.

One voice was for, the next against.

Before a standing-room-only crowd, the Norfolk City Council Tuesday evening listened to speaker after speaker touting the pros and cons of a proposed jet ski facility in Ocean View.

The facility, which would be owned and operated by Ocean View resident Ronald Boone Jr., would rent jet skis, kayaks and other watercraft along the Bay front at 9710 Chesapeake St., south of the public beach. Before construction could begin, the council would have to approve a change in zoning from residential to commercial.

Proponents said the business would provide a much-needed recreational site for families of Ocean View.

``We need something to bring life and activity to the community,'' said Manny Nofplot, a representative of the Pinewell Civic League.

``We would like to spend our time and money in Ocean View,'' said resident Sharon Smith. ``As Ocean View voters, I urge the council to vote yes.''

Those against said that to change the zoning would be in violation of the Ocean View Master Plan, which encourages residential development. They also complained about the noise of jet skis, and the danger they pose to swimmers.

``I'm totally opposed to jet skis and to the rezoning,'' said Travis MacSwain, an Ocean View resident. ``But if you're going to go against the decision made by the Planning Department, then let him (Boone) rent kayaks, sailboats, canoes and windsurfers . . . water wings, anything but jet skis.''

The Planning Department had advised the Planning Commission not to allow the facility, citing incompatibility with the community's residential setting, and providing a precedent for further commercial development.

But on Jan. 26, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to allow the change, saying it would enhance recreation in the community.

The council has deferred a vote until April 11. by CNB