Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, March 22, 1991                   TAG: 9103220738
SECTION: VIRGINIA                    PAGE: B3   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: JOEL TURNER MUNICIPAL WRITER
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

GROUP DECIDES TO PURSUE NO-LEFT-TURN SUIT

The neighborhood group also plans to expand the suit to ask a Roanoke circuit judge to decide whether the city made a binding agreement to win its approval of the Peters Creek Road extension project.

Jonathan Rogers, co-president of the group, said Thursday that the residents consider the dispute broader than one traffic sign. He said the courts are the proper place to resolve it.

Last week, Rogers had said the neighbors might drop the litigation because City Council was using it as a "smoke screen to hide behind." Council members had refused to address the sign issue because of the pending litigation.

But Rogers said the group has decided that the "issue is whether there is an agreement, and we believe the best way to find the truth is through the lawsuit," he said.

The group also plans to return to council with new questions, Rogers said, even though council members last week would not discuss the dispute.

Council last week refused to ratify a document that outlines the traffic measures, which the residents had believed to be binding. If the residents had come to council instead of going to court, Councilman Beverly Fitzpatrick Jr., said at the time, council might have been able to resolve the dispute.

The residents contend that the city agreed to a series of measures to prevent motorists from cutting through their neighborhood. They believed council had approved the restrictions last March when Herbert submitted a report on the results of mediation talks.

The ban on left turns from Grandin Road Extension onto Mud Lick Road during morning rush hours was one element. But City Manager Robert Herbert took down the no-left-turn sign in December after petitions were submitted to council signed by nearly 300 residents.

The neighborhood group contended that the city manager's decision was a breach of the agreement. It filed a lawsuit to force him to put the sign back, but Circuit Judge Roy Willett refused. The judge ruled that no further hearings would be held until the neighborhood group petitioned council to ratify the agreement.

City attorneys argued during the court proceedings that council had never ratified the traffic restrictions. The neighborhood has obtained affidavits from the mediator and the assistant state attorney general who participated in the mediation talks, stating that they believed city officials agreed to the restrictions.