THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, July 12, 1995 TAG: 9507120376
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B2 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY FRANCIE LATOUR, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: CHESAPEAKE LENGTH: Medium: 74 lines
Ignoring impassioned pleas from dozens of civic leaders and other citizens citywide, the Chesapeake City Council on Tuesday spoke out against laws designed to curb the city's rampant growth rate.
In a narrow 5-4 vote, council members denied citizens the chance to vote in a special November referendum that would have asked the General Assembly for authority to institute adequate public facilities legislation.
Such legislation would halt all new residential development until schools, roads and other services were in place to meet the demand of new homes.
But there will be a referendum in November to ask citizens to endorse a bond measure that would bring the Northwest River Water Treatment Plant in line with federal guidelines.
Only Councilman W. Joe Newman voted against the $72 million water bond referendum, which will add a new filtering process designed to remove potentially harmful chemicals from the water.
The vote not to hold the growth referendum flew in the face of frustrated citizens, who for three hours had packed the council chambers and demanded their ``god-given right'' to vote on the issue.
``I'm just in a state of absolute amazement,'' said Bea Hudson, president of the Mill Creek/Elm Wood Landing Civic League in Deep Creek, where residential developments are springing up quickly along Cedar Road, after the vote. ``They sided with business against the citizens.''
Wearing control-growth buttons, residents said they were ``held captive'' by unrelenting development and were being forced to send their children to classroom trailers because the school system could not keep up with the explosion in population.
One citizen said her child had not seen the inside of a school from first to eighth grade.
Gene Waters, president of the Chesapeake council of civic organizations said the problem would just get worse without the legislation. ``What we've seen tonight is who is for the public and who is against the public,'' he said.
But there were those who said the legislation would have been a mistake.
``I don't think an A.P.F. ordinance is the way,'' said Donna L. Girardot, executive director of the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce's Chesapeake Division. ``I don't think it's good for the citizens. I don't think it's good for business.''
Two council members who backed the referendum said they had hoped the voter mandate would break a stalemate with state officials, who must give permission for such ordinances.
The City Council repeatedly has requested methods to control growth but has been rejected by the General Assembly.
Yet, some of those same council members on Tuesday labeled adequate public facilities legislation a moratorium on growth that could threaten the city's economic future and hurt homeowners by forcing developers to raise the price of their houses.
Supporters argued that the legislation would have allowed the council to time future development with the city's own plans to build and improve its roads, schools and other infrastructure in that area. The law also would have given developers the option to pay for those improvements if they wanted to build sooner.
Only the General Assembly can give localities permission to implement such a law.
Had the referendum been held and voters responded with an overwhelming mandate for the control measures, council members who support it said the vote could have spoken to state representatives in a way that would be hard to ignore.
Voting for the referendum were councilmen: John M. de Triquet; Alan P. Krasnoff; Vice Mayor Robert T. Nance, and Dalton S. Edge.
Voting against the measure were: John E. Allen; John W. Butt; W. Joe Newman; Peter P. Duda Jr. and Mayor William E. Ward. by CNB