THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, November 2, 1996 TAG: 9611020264
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY TERRI WILLIAMS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: SUFFOLK LENGTH: 74 lines
The state Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for an automobile race track along the Chesapeake-Suffolk border.
The court ruled 5-2 that such a facility fits under the city's zoning ordinances and that the City Council did not overstep its authority in March 1995 when it rezoned the 685 acres at Shoulders Hill Road and Nansemond Parkway to allow the track and an industrial park.
Opponents from both Suffolk and Chesapeake formed a group called Citizens Against the Racetrack and challenged the rezoning in court.
But Suffolk Circuit Judge Rodham T. Delk ruled a year ago that the City Council acted within its legislative powers when it granted the permit.
Friday, the Supreme Court affirmed Delk's decision.
Track opponents had argued that the rezoning was improper because the facility wouldn't qualify for a commercial/recreational use under Suffolk's zoning ordinance. The citizens also contended that the track would be too noisy, cause traffic problems and would be of noeconomic benefit for the area.
The city's zoning ordinance defines commercial/recreational uses as including ``bowling alleys, miniature golf, golf driving ranges, pool halls, billiard parlors, dance halls, penny arcades and similar forms of public amusement.''
However, City Attorney C. Edward Roettger and John D. Padgett, a lawyer for UA Associates - the company that has development rights to the land - argued that the ordinance allows for a broader interpretation that includes spectator sports such as race track events.
The high court agreed with the city and developers.
It ruled that the proposed race track qualified because the zoning ordinance defines that a commercial use also means that it's near public roadways and utilities.
Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy, writing for the majority, asserted that under the city code, ``zoning classification is intended to apply to lands which by virtue of `their accessibility to arterial roadways and utilities' and relationship to defined market areas are `well suited' to provide commercial services and `are intended to serve larger commercial markets.' ''
She wrote that the code would permit: ``such activities as theatres, parking lots, restaurants, hotels, motels, hospitals, schools and colleges.''
The court ruled that it is within a council's legislative power to approve a conditional use permit.
The justices also noted that Suffolk had granted the permit under a number of restrictions, including limiting the races to certain days of the week and requiring cityapproved security and trash pickup.
Two justices, Leroy R. Hassell Sr. and Harry L. Carrico, dissented, arguing that Suffolk did not follow its own ordinance.
The dissenters took a narrower interpretation of the ordinance, writing: ``There is simply no degree of similarity between bowling alleys, miniature golf, golf driving ranges, pool halls, billiard parlors, dance halls, penny arcades and an automobile racetrack with a seating capacity of 7,500 which, undoubtedly, will cause noise and disruption adjacent to a residential neighborhood.''
The ruling was welcomed by Padgett, who represents the company that plans to develop the track.
``They're happy they can move forward without the cloud of a lawsuit hanging over their heads,'' he said.
Gordon B. Tayloe Jr., who represents CAR, said he had not received the opinion on Friday.
``I am an attorney with disappointed clients,'' Tayloe said.
Roettger, the city attorney, was unavailable for comment. Dave Walkup, co-chairman for Citizens Against the Racetrack, also could not be reached Friday. ILLUSTRATION: Color staff map
Area Shown: Proposed race track
KEYWORDS: VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT RULING SUFFOLK RACE TRACK by CNB