THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, February 1, 1997 TAG: 9702010004
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A8 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 71 lines
For Chesapeake citizens opposed to their city's rapid growth, there is recent good news but ongoing not-so-good news.
The good news is that growth has slowed from the go-go years of 1993 and 1994. That's partly because the demand for homes cooled and partly because City Council in recent years has rezoned very little land to residential. In the almost two years since City Council adopted a more stringent land-use policy, there have been only four rezonings to residential. In a single year previously, there might have been 30 to 40 such rezonings.
The not-so-good news for growth opponents is that the city contains 5,000 vacant acres already zoned residential. That land is in parcels ranging from 10 to 800 acres and contains room for 19,000 residences. Assuming the national average of 2.87 persons per residential unit, there's space already zoned residential for 54,530 more people.
The General Assembly gives cities considerable leeway in determining which land to rezone residential, and Chesapeake City Council, to its credit, is exercising that power wisely. If a rezoning to residential would overtax area schools, roads and sewers, the present council almost inevitably disapproves the rezoning.
But for land already zoned residential, the state ties cities' hands. If a builder wants to put houses on land zoned residential, he can do so in Virginia even though nearby schools, roads and sewers already are overburdened.
Anti-growth forces want council to ask the General Assembly for additional powers to control growth on land already zoned residential. For example, they believe the state should empower cities to deny development on land zoned residential if that development would overburden services like schools.
The majority of current council members oppose asking for such powers, arguing that (1) they don't need them, (2) no other Virginia city has them and (3) acquiring such powers would send the message the city was anti-growth and thus might strangle growth in the city. Some growth, they note, is good.
But a previous council did seek such growth-control powers, called Adequate Public Facilities, in 1994 and 1995, though the General Assembly denied the request. About six states have those powers, including Maryland and Florida.
For four straight years, including this one, Chesapeake has requested the power to charge developers ``impact fees'' to cover the cost of new roads or schools or other items made necessary by new development. None of those requests has been approved, either.
Clearly, money-strapped Chesapeake needs a breather to catch up with past rapid growth. Had the annual 4 percent growth rate in 1993 and 1994 continued indefinitely, the city would have doubled in population every 18 years. That kind of residential explosion is impossible to cope with.
In 1995, growth slowed to a more-manageable 2.3 percent. The rate would have been the same in 1996, except that enough people left the city when World War II-era homes in Campostella Square were demolished to reduce the population increase to 1.7 percent. Growth this year is projected at 2 percent to 2.3 percent, said Brent R. Nielson, Chesapeake's director of planning.
Overall demand for South Hampton Roads housing was low last year, with Norfolk shrinking slightly, Virginia Beach growing only 1 percent, and smaller Suffolk up 2.86 percent.
Chesapeake growth still could heat up if demand accelerates.
In fact, growth remains high in three of the city's nine sections: Deep Creek, up 3.48 percent last year; Greenbrier, up 3.4 percent; and Rivercrest, up 3.83 percent.
So it cannot be said with certainty that the council has a handle on controlling growth, though clearly council has had some success.
It would make sense for Chesapeake to press the state for the tools necessary to restrict growth on land already zoned residential, if that growth would overtax schools, roads, sewers and even recreation.
Council wouldn't be obligated to use those powers, but they might well be needed down the road.
While restraining residential growth, Chesapeake should continue efforts to recruit business and industry and thus to expand the city's tax base.