THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, June 11, 1996 TAG: 9606110303
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B3 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY TERRI WILLIAMS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: SUFFOLK LENGTH: 60 lines
Is an automobile race track in your neighborhood the recreational equivalent of a bowling alley, pool parlor or dance hall?
That is what the state Supreme Court will have to decide when it hears an appeal to rezone land for a race track and industrial park near the Chesapeake-Suffolk border.
For almost a year, residents who formed the Citizens Against Racetrack group have fought a City Council-approved rezoning of 685 acres at Shoulders Hill Road and Nansemond Parkway for an industrial park and race track.
The group contends that the track will be too loud, cause traffic problems and will not economically benefit the cities. It also argues that, according to the city's zoning ordinance, a race track isn't compatible for that particular commercial, recreational use.
The state Supreme Court agreed late last week to consider the group's assertions, a move that could delay efforts to build on the land. Since the rezoning was first challenged in March 1995, nothing has been built on the property.
This fall, the court will consider whether the City Council had the authority to grant a conditional use permit for a commercial recreational use for that parcel of land.
The group's lawyer, Gordon B. Tayloe Jr., said nearby residents do not dispute that a race track is a commercial venture, but they question whether the council accurately characterized the track as being recreational.
Suffolk's zoning ordinance defines commercial recreational uses as including: ``bowling alleys, miniature golf, golf driving ranges, pool halls, billiard parlors, dance halls, penny arcades and similar forms of public amusement.''
``The question is whether it's compatible with a recreational use,'' said Tayloe. ``There's a great big difference between a race track and a bowling alley.''
City Attorney C. Edward Roettger and John D. Padgett, a lawyer for UA Associates - the company that owns the land - contend that the ordinance allows for a broader interpretation that includes spectator sports such as race track events.
``The usual and ordinary use of the term `commercial' implies financial gain,' '' the lawyers wrote in briefs filed with the court.
``The list of authorized uses include events which an individual can participate in or merely observe.''
In November, Circuit Judge Rodham T. Delk ruled that the City Council acted within its powers in granting the rezoning request.
Delk wrote in his opinion: ``Even though the rezoning was arguably incompatible with Plan 2005, there is no proof whatsoever that the legislative purpose of the rezoning was in fact to serve only the private interests of the landowner and developer.''
At one point, the 100 or so opponents from Chesapeake and Suffolk did not think they would have the finances to continue their legal fight. But they raised $20,000 to continue the petition, said Dave Walkup, co-chairman of Citizens Against Racetrack. MEMO: Staff Writer Robert Little contributed to this report.
KEYWORDS: VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT SUFFOLK CITY COUNCIL RACE
TRACK by CNB