Thursday, February 21, 2008
Forest resident appeals drag strip decision
He said the noise from the New London Airport and Dragstrip is "so intolerable" that he has to leave his property during races.
The rumbling over the use of a Bedford County drag strip isn't finished yet.
On Wednesday, Al Stroobants, who owns a home and farm adjacent to the drag strip and airport in Forest, filed a circuit court appeal of a county zoning decision. Stroobants says the noise from the drag strip action is "so intolerable" that he and guests at his house have been forced to leave his property while races are being held.
Stroobants' appeal comes after the county's Board of Zoning Appeals upheld a ruling last month made by George Nester, the county's chief zoning official, that activities at the New London Airport and Dragstrip are acceptable.
Stroobants is suing the Board of Zoning Appeals and Associated Wheels, the property owner, according to a copy of his lawsuit.
When the county adopted zoning ordinances, first in 1989 and again in 1998, the parcel's use was exempted by a grandfather clause.
Stroobants' lawyer, Wil Dibling, argues that the drag strip should lose its grandfathered status because the character of the drag strip changed because the amount of races there has increased.
Nester, citing earlier decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of Virginia, found the character of the property did not change.
In a letter to Stroobants, Nester wrote: "The court has recognized that a nonconforming use need not remain static; a mere increase in volume, intensity or frequency of use of the drag strip is permissible."
A case review conducted by Nester and the county's planning staff determined the drag strip was constructed in 1957 and the airport began operating in 1961. The investigation also concluded that the number of races fluctuated over the drag strip's more than 50 years of operation, ranging from eight to 18 races annually.
Lawyers for Stroobants argue the property's original use was an airport, not a drag strip. However the lawsuit does not contest the use of the property as an airport.





