THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, March 5, 1995 TAG: 9503040078
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
SOURCE: John Pruitt
LENGTH: Medium: 73 lines
As if things weren't complicated enough regarding the proposed industrial park and race track on the Suffolk-Chesapeake border, it looks as if the floodgates will be officially opened Monday.
While no one in city government would comment on a specific legal issue because Citizens Against the Racetrack has filed suit to block rezoning for the park and track, a look at the State Code and correspondence regarding a Dec. 20 public hearing on the land-use change clearly indicates that the city did not dot all the i's and cross all the t's to meet notice requirements.
Specifically, the State Code stipulates that in such matters as changing a city's comprehensive plan or making certain zoning changes within one-half mile of a shared boundary, the administrative officer of the neighboring locality be notified at least 10 days before any public hearing.
A letter about rezoning for the track and park, addressed to ``Dear Property Owner,'' was sent on Dec. 15, 1994, under the signature of Planning Director Robert A. Baldwin for a hearing Dec. 20 by the Planning Commission - one half the advance stipulated by the State Code - and on Jan. 4 by the City Council.
The letter, advising of Planning Commission consideration of the rezonings, bore this addendum: ``Please note the above application is to change the applicant from the previous U. and A. (Upton & Arnette) Associates to the City of Suffolk.'' The earlier application had been withdrawn.
The question apparently left unanswered by the State Code is this: So what happens when a municipality fails to give the stipulated 10 days' notice? Do the parties fight it out in court, thus putting in limbo any potential industrial prospects Suffolk might have for Northgate Industrial Park; or does the city acknowledge the error - as technical as it might be - and restart the process?
The answer will come Monday, but you can bet that Suffolk won't opt to chance leaving at least that aspect of the whole deal to the courts. Negotiations for industry are intricate, sensitive matters, and Suffolk officials would be foolish to let this cloud hang over the land and scare away badly needed industry.
The likelihood is that the City Council will opt for more public hearings and giving everyone plenty of notice.
While I've never bought the notion that anyone was kept in the dark about the proposed park and racetrack, the hearings would address one overlooked legal detail. The track was widely publicized when it was announced last year, and numerous news sources reported on it before the matter went before the Planning Commission, which recommended against rezoning, and the City Council.
Still, a number of Chesapeake residents - particularly residents of Jolliff Woods in Western Branch - protested that they didn't get notice of a project that could affect everything from their neighborhood's peace and quiet to their property values.
A sizeable number of Suffolk residents opposed the rezoning before the Planning Commission and City Council, and they and the Western Branch residents turned up the heat of their opposition with the lawsuit against Suffolk.
One thing is certain: people on both sides of the issue will be plenty vocal at future hearings. That's fine, if they'll just stick to the issue and skip some of the allegations City Council members already have endured.
Everyone must remember: approval of a racetrack doesn't mean it will be built. There are all kinds of environmental hoops to jump through before the first spadeful of dirt is turned, and there's the very substantial issue of financing. That leaves the opponents with a question: Is their objection to a racetrack or any change? Not even dotting the i's and crossing the t's will resolve that.
Comment? Call 934-7553. by CNB