THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, September 14, 1995 TAG: 9509140352
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B3 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MAC DANIEL, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: SUFFOLK LENGTH: Medium: 57 lines
One side contends that City Council illegally rezoned land along Chesapeake's border for a racetrack and industrial park, ruined the lives of nearby residents and helped a developer save thousands of dollars in rezoning penalties.
The other argues that a lawsuit challenging the rezoning of land for the racetrack and industrial park is little more than a stalling tactic.
Nothing, city officials and the developer contend, is out of line.
The long-awaited legal battle pitting those who live near the proposed track against Upton-Arnette Associates and the city of Suffolk went to trial Wednesday.
After 4 1/2 hours of testimony from about 10 witnesses, Circuit Judge Rodham T. Delk Jr. said he will probably issue a ruling Oct. 30.
Residents who filed the suit were asked to tell the judge where they live in relation to the industrial site. The nearest, Beverly Outlaw, said she lives a quarter-mile away.
David Matson, a Suffolk pediatrician and opponent of the track, testified that his research showed that soils at the site were unsuitable for large development. He said he had relied on the city's own documents.
Former Planning Director Robert Baldwin testified that the site had been rated the city's prime industrial site as early as 1990.
The lawsuit was filed by residents of Chesapeake and Suffolk and accuses the Suffolk City Council of acting ``arbitrarily and capriciously'' in approving the rezoning of farmland for the 684-acre industrial park and racetrack in northern Suffolk.
Located in a rural area, the proposed Northgate Industrial Park and Suffolk International Speedway have yet to break ground. Nearby residents fear the roar of the track will disturb their way of life.
They contend that Suffolk illegally rezoned the land on Jan. 4 after giving the city of Chesapeake five days' notice about a public hearing in December. State law requires 10 days' notice.
Suffolk admitted its mistake but said it compensated by holding a second public hearing in March for which adequate notice was given and after which the previous rezoning was ratified.
The residents, however, argued that the city cannot legally ratify a rezoning that was previously illegal.
The plaintiffs also disputed the cost of an agreement between the city of Suffolk and the developer, Upton-Arnette Associates.
They said the city may stand to loose $151,000 in taxes because the city's Industrial Development Authority applied for a rezoning permit after the developer had withdrawn its application.
The developer would have had to pay the money in a tax that helps preserve agricultural and timber land if it is changed a rural state.
KEYWORDS: LAWSUIT SUFFOLK CITY COUNCIL RACETRACK by CNB