By MATTHEW JONES, The Virginian-Pilot
© April 20, 2007
RICHMOND - The fate of 21 acres of undeveloped East Ocean View land hung in the balance Thursday, when the state's highest court heard a case brought by a group that hopes to save it.
At issue was a petition asking that voters be allowed to decide whether the land is redeveloped.
The oral arguments before the Supreme Court of Virginia were technical, focusing on whether a single petition was enough to address multiple ordinances approved by the Norfolk City Council.
The court's decision is expected within the next two months.
Thursday's hearing stemmed from a battle that began in June 2005, when the Bay Oaks Park Committee, which had been fighting for years to preserve the land, asked that the entire 21 acres be made into a public park. The property is between 3rd Bay and 7th Bay streets, across Ocean View Avenue from the Chesapeake Bay.
One month later, the City Council unanimously voted to rezone much of the land to allow for the development of 85 houses and an eight-acre park.
The following month, the group presented the c ouncil with a petition demanding that residents be allowed to vote on whether to rescind the rezoning. The city argued that the petition's wording was unclear, and that a referendum was an inappropriate way to make zoning decisions.
The Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority, a state-chartered agency, owns most of the rezoned property. But there are nearly a dozen private property owners whose land was also affected.
The committee's attorney, Andrew M. Sacks, argued that the group acted in good faith, and that the petition's signers were told this was merely the first stage of several it would take to have the land designated as a park.
The city took the matter to Norfolk Circuit Court in February 2006, and a Richmond judge brought in for the hearing declared the petition invalid, saying the committee should have gathered signatures on four petitions to match the council's four ordinances.
Sacks appealed to the state Supreme Court, maintaining that one petition was sufficient. On Thursday, he reiterated this claim, citing parts of the Norfolk city code as support.
Arguing for the city and housing authority, Conrad M. Shumadine - who also represents The Virginian-Pilot - said the Norfolk Circuit Court was correct in deciding that one petition was inadequate to put the issue on the ballot.
Furthermore, he said, the four ordinances were legally unrelated yet included together, making the potential for confusion high.
In his rebuttal, Sacks argued that the ordinances are related because they're the first legal steps necessary to begin converting the land to open space. To follow the city's logic that the ordinances need to be handled separately, he said, "would not only have a chilling effect" on future petitions, but would effectively prevent any future challenge by voters.
For if a City Council were intent on passing an issue, he said, it could effectively make its decision petition-proof by splitting it into multiple parts.
No comments:
Post a Comment