Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular MeetingSmithfield, VA · July 18, 2023
Minutes
The Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) held its regular meeting on Tuesday, July
18th, 2023. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present:
Gregory Brown – Chairman
Gene Monroe – Vice Chairman
Nick Hess
Beth Haywood
Members absent:
Faye Seeley
Staff present:
Tammie Clary – Community Development & Planning Director
William H. Riddick III - Town Attorney
Mark Kluck – Planner
Nadya Jaudzimas – Administrative Assistant
Valerie Butler – Vice Mayor, Town Council
Charles Bryan – Chairman, Planning Commission
Julie Hess – Board member, Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR)
Press: 0
Citizens: 7
Chairman Brown called the regular meeting to order.
Community Development & Planning Director’s Report:
Tammie Clary, Director of Community Planning and Development, welcomed Nick Hess
to the BZA.
Board Member Comments:
Chairman Brown also extended a welcome to Mr. Hess to the Board.
*Public Hearing* SPECIAL YARD EXCEPTION (SYE) Application – Lot 98 Smithfield
Boulevard (TPIN: 22E-01-098), Michael Rowe, applicant.
Mrs. Clary reported that the applicant applied for a Special Yard Exception for three
encroachments into the required, thirty-five-foot (35’) front yard setback (pursuant to Smithfield
Zoning Ordinance (SZO) Section 3.B.F.2.A.1). She specified that the encroachments were to allow
the following: a 27.44 foot front yard setback, a 28.46 foot front yard setback, and a 30.95 foot
front yard setback. She explained that the encroachments would accommodate a new single-family
dwelling and were constituted by a portion of the front corner of the proposed single-family
dwelling and the attached garage. Mrs. Clary stated that due to the large Resource Protection Area
(RPA) that encumbered the property, the only viable way to accommodate the proposed dwelling
was to encroach into the front yard setback; therefore, staff recognized the obstacles present on the
parcel and recommend the BZA make an accommodation.
Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals
July 18th, 2023
Mrs. Clary gave the update that since the staff report had been drafted, the item had been
reviewed by the Planning Commission for a Chesapeake Bay Exception (CBE). She stated that the
CBE had been granted under the condition that the Front Yard Exception was favorably approved
by the BZA.
Chairman Brown asked for clarification that the applicant needed the CBE due to the 100
foot RPA setback.
Mrs. Clary stated that this was correct. She detailed that the applicant had sought an
exception into the 50 foot landward side of the 100 foot RPA, adding that the single-family
dwelling fell in-between the two.
Chairman Brown determined that the applicant had to stay out of the 50 foot seaward side
of the RPA.
Chairman Brown opened the public hearing and inquired if there was anyone present who
wished to speak.
Mike Rowe, applicant, stated that he was present to answer any questions that the Board
may have. He thanked Tammie Clary and Mark Kluck for their help during the application process.
Chairman Brown asked if there were any other members of the public who wished to speak.
Seeing and hearing none, the public hearing was closed.
Vice Chair Monroe confirmed that there were no written, or otherwise, objections that
Town Staff had received regarding the application.
Ms. Haywood recalled that the Board had approved a yard exception for Lot 99 at their
previous meeting.
The Town Attorney detailed the history of the that area for the benefit of Mr. Hess, as he
was new to the BZA. He reported that the subdivision had been platted prior to the 1979
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, and as such was not designed with those regulations in mind.
He continued that the CBPA had enacted the 50 foot and then 100 foot RPAs which, as was
applicable in this instance, could reduce or remove a lots buildable area. He explained that through
no fault of their own, the State had imposed these regulations which made the property owner
eligible for a yard exception, which BZA had the power to grant or deny.
Ms. Haywood assessed that since this property was within a cul-de-sac it was not as unsafe
to have a house built closer to the road.
Chairman Brown agreed and pointed out the house would not be blocking any sight lines
for view of other vehicles or pedestrians coming up the road.
Vice Chair Monroe related his experience with owning a home on a marsh and being
limited in how far back they could build.
Ms. Haywood made a motion to approve the yard exception as submitted. Vice Chair
Monroe seconded the motion.
Chairman Brown called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none
opposed. The motion passed.
*Public Hearing* SPECIAL YARD EXCEPTION (SYE) Application – 604 Quail St
(TPIN:21A-09-003), Southeastern Property Management LLC C/O Tyrone Melvin
applicant.
2
Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals
July 18th, 2023
Mrs. Clary reported that the applicants had applied for an SYE encroachment into the
required, twenty-five-foot (25’) rear yard setback (pursuant to Smithfield Zoning Ordinance (SZO)
Section 3.D.F.2.A.3), in accordance with Article 12.F.7.b. the encroachment was to allow an 8.94
foot rear yard setback to accommodate a 15 foot by 10 foot uncovered deck and 6.10 feet of the
primary structure. She stated that the encroachments would accommodate a new single-family
dwelling and were constituted by a portion of the rear of the proposed single-family dwelling and
the attached deck. She explained that due to the reoccurring flooding located in this area, Town
Staff had advised the applicant against building a new single-family dwelling. She reported that
Town Staff did not support this application for a rear yard exception and recommended the BZA
deny the application.
Chairman Brown opened the public hearing and reported that there were members of the
public who had signed up to speak about the matter.
Sherman Addison reported that he was a Trustee of the Addison Revokable Trust for Lot
5 in Lakeside Heights, adding that the trust was an agreement within the family for how the
property would be titled. He continued that this property was adjacent to TPIN:21A-09-003, or
Lot 3, that was requesting a SYE to construct a dwelling that would essentially encroach upon the
trustee’s property. Mr. Addison asked to share the history of the property, as well as some of the
others in the area, which were a part of the original Lakeside community. He reported that he had
grown up on Great Springs Road, however when the Route 10 Bypass had been built the houses
had been demolished. He continued that it was around the late 50’s or early 60’s when the first
homes were built on Quail Street. Mr. Addison stated that Mr. Plummer and Mrs. Verger Tyne
were included with the first builders in the area, and were the first owners of the Lot 3 and Lot 5.
He stated that the next two contiguous lots were purchased by Mr. Wesley and Mrs. Julia Keyes,
adding that Mrs. Keyes still resides on her property. He continued that Mr. Emmet and Mrs. Emma
Chapman, parents of former Mayor James Chapman, also purchased more than one lot. He stated
that it seemed that those property owners were concerned about space and the integrity of the
newest black community in Smithfield at that time. Mr. Addison said that the owners could be
considered ahead of their time considering the subsequent zoning ordinances that dictated structure
size in relation to the size of the lot. He reported that the homes and lawns, even though they were
small, were the envy of other black people in the Town and County. He added that the properties
he referred to had the advantage of not succumbing to the same flooding as the houses that were
near the intersection of Quail Street and Great Springs Road. Mr. Addison explained that the Isle
of Wight County Board of Supervisors had purchased Lot 2 to cut their losses and enhance the
integrity of the neighborhood. He pointed out that this lot was directly across the street from the
property that was the subject of the public hearing, Lot 3. He reviewed that the current owners,
Southeastern Property Management LLC, were looking to expand their expertise from managing
properties to investing in and flipping properties. He added to this that he had no issues with that
type of business, but his concern dealt with the integrity of the community. Mr. Addison reported
that it was the opinion of the trustees of Lot 5, and also one expressed by others within the
community, that the action taken by the current owner, that were reflected in pictures he had taken
and shared, would only exacerbate the potential for more flooding. He stated that all the vegetation
from Lot 3, and even some from the rear of Lot 5, was bulldozed away. He added that some of that
3
Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals
July 18th, 2023
vegetation had been pushed to the rear of Lot 5 and showed a total lack of respect for the affected
property owners. He continued that it was a total disregard to the community as a whole. Mr.
Addison pointed out that since Lots 3 and 5 slope downward, all water would also go downward.
He surmised that all the water would have nowhere to go but down to the low point at Lot 1 or 600
Quail Street. He speculated that this would have negative impact on the value of the properties.
Mr. Addison expressed appreciation for being able to speak at the public hearing, and ask that the
BZA respectfully deny the request for a SYE on Lot 3 of Quail Street under the provisions laid out
in Article 12, Section F7b. of the Smithfield Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Valerie Butler of 209 Spring Drive in Smithfield thanked Mr. Addison for the history
that he gave of the community. She stated that she had reached out to some of the BZA Board
members and Mrs. Clary regarding her concern for the request for a SYE on Lot 3. She reported
that she had conversations with people in the community in reference to the new construction, and
would also like to request the Board decline to approve the application. Ms. Butler encouraged all
in attendance to travel to the area in question to view the lot. She added that she had sent an email
regarding the request with a newspaper article attached that had been written about flood-prone
areas that had covered the Lakeside area. Ms. Butler detailed that she had also sent a “horrific”
video of what the flooding looked like for their review. She related that she grew up in the same
community, and as a child she had never seen what she had experienced in the past several years.
She listed Hurricane Floyd in 1999, with Nor’easters in 2006, 2018, and 2020 that had come with
exceptionally bad flooding. She described these events as not just having flooding that would cover
roads and curbing, but flooding that included 15 feet of water. Ms. Butler reported that 3 of the 5
houses in the neighborhood that were on Great Springs Road had gone through the process to
become elevated, which made their first floors garage space. She stated that the flooding had
become such that these houses with garages on the first floor continued to experience flooding into
the second floor living area. Ms. Butler recalled that a family that lived in that area had come
before the Town Council to speak about their experience and she described the statements that
their young child had made as being in-line with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). She
asked the Board members to imagine living in a home that you thought was a safe-haven and
having your stress level rise every time it rained. Ms. Butler said that in addition to the setback
waiver, if the property size and elevation was considered, the adjacent lot’s driveway was
encroaching on the property. She acknowledged that she was unsure what size house they would
be building, but her concern remained with flooding. She added that she had concern just with the
level of excavation that had been completed and its relation to the flooding issues of the area. She
pointed out that there was a street sign on Hillcrest Drive and the flooding had gone as high as the
sign itself. She reported that this was directly across the street from where the house was planning
on being built. Ms. Butler also reported that she did not have concerns with the business with
buying and flipping properties, but felt that approving this would be doing a disservice to the
community. She explained to the Board that the Town of Smithfield had invested in a grant
program to relocate the homeowners on Great Springs Road, and it would be a disservice to a new
homeowner to allow for new home construction in that area.
Chairman Brown pointed out to the other Board members the “public comments” tab where
Mr. Addison’s pictures that were referenced could be viewed. He added that included in this
4
Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals
July 18th, 2023
information was a letter sent from Betty Ricks who resided at 600 Quail Street stating that she did
not approve of the house being built on that lot. He inquired if there were any other members of
the public present who would like to speak regarding the matter.
Tyrone Melvin Jr. of Southeastern Property Management LLC stated that he sympathized
with the members of the community and what they had experienced with flooding. He reported
that his company was not going to take anything away from the community, but bring a nice, new
home that brought more value into that area. He countered the earlier statement that vegetation
was pushed into the woods, and reported that it had been done that way in order to stay clear of
the power line situated opposite. He said that he had now spoken with the head of Erosion and
Sediment Control (E & S) and had an understanding of the need to get erosion permits, adding that
once the permit was received the “Stop Work” action against the property would be lifted. He
reiterated that clearing of vegetation on the lot was and pushing it into the wooded area was to stop
the debris from hitting houses or power lines. Mr. Melvin stated that to address any concern with
erosion, they had installed silk fencing which was normal for any new construction. He said that
the lot in question was in between two existing houses with one that was situated lower that had
not been taken by the Town on Great Springs Road. He reported that his company was aware of
the Town taking action in regard to the houses along Great Springs Road due to the flooding, and
their intention was not to build within the flood plain. He detailed that when they employed Canada
Land Surveying to complete the survey whether or not the property was in a flood zone had been
one of their questions. He reported that the survey completed showed that the lot was located
outside of the flood zone, which the Board members had a copy of for review. Mr. Melvin
summarized that the reason they were before the Board was to discuss the requested setback
exceptions. He stated that on the front of the property the setback had been encroached by the front
steps of the proposed home. He outlined that a proposed floating deck at the back of the property
and acknowledged that Mr. Kluck had notified them that this plan may not be suitable. He added
that most floating decks were not attached to the primary property and as such could be removed
anytime. He pointed out that the builder for his company was present as well. Mr. Melvin said that
he wanted to address the statement made that he was an investor that flipped properties and
reported that he was a developer partner with the builder. He added that the house plans had been
approved by Isle of Wight County several times. He stated that he would answer any questions the
Board had, but his builder could answer any questions specific to construction.
Vice Chair Monroe stated that he had question for the applicant.
The Town Attorney advised that they should let the builder speak, then close the public
hearing portion, and proceed ask any questions they might have.
Mr. Melvin stated that he had one more point to make and reported that the new home
would be built on a crawlspace foundation, and they would have the ability to adjust the height to
prevent any flooding mishaps.
Chris Davis, the builder/partner with Southeastern Property Management LLC, reported
that the rear setback was the company’s main concern. He corrected that the proposed deck was
actually 12 x 12’ and not 10 x 15’, and reiterated that it was a floating deck. He stated that the
initial concern that the neighbors had was with the driveway encroachment on the property. Mr.
Davis said that they were now saying that flooding is their concern, but it had not come up prior.
5
Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals
July 18th, 2023
He continued that the primary issues were the driveway encroachment and their company taking
away land that the neighbors used for cookouts. Mr. Davis asserted that no one had ever mentioned
to the company concerns regarding flooding. He pointed out that the neighbors had elevated their
homes, which was the plan for the new construction. He added that people build on flood zones
all the time.
Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak.
Mr. Melvin stated he wanted to add that if the deck was a problem, that it could be removed
from the plans making their request only 6 feet of encroachment into the setback.
Chairman Brown closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Monroe asked if Mr. Melvin could come back to the podium to answer some
questions that he had. He said that there were houses on either side of the proposed new
construction, and asked how their building on the lot would affect the flooding issue.
Mr. Melvin answered that it should not affect the issue. He detailed that they were building
a house in an already established neighborhood, on an empty lot, with the flood area identified by
Smithfield on Great Springs Road and not up on Quail Street, and Vice Chair Monroe had the
same questions that they did.
Vice Chair Monroe asked if their mitigation plan was to place the home on stilts.
Mr. Melvin clarified that their plan was to place the home on a crawlspace.
Chairman Brown pointed out that they were adding impervious area to the neighborhood,
which resulted in less ground available to absorb excess water.
The Town Attorney attested that he had been in his position for 30 years, and when he first
started working for the Town there were no homes at the bottom of Great Springs Road near Quail
Street and the culvert. He clarified that none of the area had been designated by the federal
government as a flood zone, which is why the surveyor had likely said it was not contained within
one. He continued that in spite of this information, they had 30 years of historical information that
proved the area floods. The Town Attorney reported that when permits were applied for to build
houses in that area the Director of Community Development and Planning at that time, Mr.
Hopkins, advised the applicants not to build in that area due to the flooding issues. He explained
that the likely culprit of the flooding was the size of the culverts that were placed during the
building of the Route 10 Bypass were not large enough to handle the amount of watershed in the
area. He corroborated the information given by Ms. Butler that the Town had received a grant that
would allow them to offer the homeowners in that area the opportunity to sell their homes. He
added that the homeowners had come to the Town on numerous occasions to plead for assistance.
The Town Attorney reported that though most of the property owners in that area had their homes
elevated to great heights, they now had run into the issue of becoming stranded during flooding
events. He stated that the grant from the Town extended the property next to Ms. Ricks, who was
next door to the property in question. He concluded that due to all of the information given the
Town could not see the benefit of constructing another home in an area that was known to be prone
to flooding.
Mr. Melvin stated that his rebuttal to this statement was that his company had built homes
in Poquoson and Yorktown, both areas which were prone to flooding. He stated that if a buyer was
made aware of the information about the flooding, and still wanted to live in that area, then it
6
Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals
July 18th, 2023
should be left up to the buyer. He added that he meant no disrespect to the Board, but they were
about progress in the Town and not taking away from it. Mr. Melivn acknowledged that he did not
make decisions for the Town, but if they were receiving a grant from the government, then they
should use that money to figure out a way to prevent flooding in the area instead of asking people
to move. He related that he had family in Newport News in an area that floods, specifically Sauders
Creek, and the local government there was not going to remove the people who lived there due to
the history of the area.
Chairman Brown reminded Mr. Melvin that the public hearing had closed.
Vice Chair Monroe stated that he had appreciated Mr. Melvin’s response. He shared his
personal experience with a similar situation at his family’s home in Norfolk. He reported that he
had grown up there and the flooding was always bad. He stated that in 2016 his father had been
moving things out of the flood waters for an extended period of time and suffered a heart attack.
He continued that shortly thereafter, the City of Norfolk finally took action and fixed the plumbing
and drainage system after decades of flooding. He concluded that this was what Smithfield should
do. Vice Chair Monroe stated that the property owners wanted to build a house on the property
and they could. He reiterated that the flood issue should be taken care of by the Town.
Chairman Brown pointed out that the BZA did not have the authority to tell the property
owners that they could not build a house on their lot. He said that the Board could only approve or
disapprove the SYE.
The Town Attorney stated that was correct. He reported that the Town of Smithfield did
not have the ability to fix the flooding issue in that particular area as the problem was created by
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) when they built the Route 10 Bypass. He
continued that the estimated cost to fix the issue was in the tens of millions of dollars. The Town
Attorney agreed that Mr. Melvin owned the property and could build a home within the permitted
area. He continued that they were requesting an exception to do more on the property then what
was permitted. He reviewed that Mr. Melvin had stated that people should be able to buy a home
in this area if they wanted to, which was the crux of the issue as there was no mechanism where
buyers had the ability to understand was subject to being flooded. He added that this is the situation
that all five property owners on Great Springs Road had run into.
Vice Chairman Monroe stated if the issue was with the deck and not the house then he was
unsure what the Board was worried about.
The Town Attorney replied that it was not about the deck. He recapped that the applicant
was asking for a 6 foot encroachment of the primary structure into the rear yard.
Mr. Melvin confirmed if the proposed deck was removed from the plans, then only 6 feet
of the living area would be encroaching into the setback. He added that the history that he had
researched showed that this situation was normally approved by the BZA. He requested that they
receive the same treatment as other applicants prior.
The Town Attorney stated that in his 30 years as Town Attorney this type of application
had never been approved in that neighborhood.
Mr. Melvin recognized that it had not in that neighborhood, but it had in others.
Mr. Hess asked for confirmation that the distance from the ramp to the house was 19 feet,
and that the intention was to build the house so closely to the houses on either side.
7
Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals
July 18th, 2023
Mr. Melvin clarified that they had adhered to the side yard setback requirements.
Ms. Haywood addressed Mr. Melvin and stated that if it was up to her, she would not allow
him to build anything on the lot. She said that she appreciated their business of building houses,
but pointed out that they did not even have to tell the people who might buy it that they could be
subject to a flooded house within a year. She reported that she had seen what had happened to the
people who lived on Great Springs Road, which was situated right next to his lot, that she felt it
was wrong. Ms. Haywood said that they recognized that it was not located in a flood zone
according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), but they had seen the results
of the flooding where people had to be evacuated by boat right next door to where they would be
building. She stated that she felt that it was unethical to build on the lot, especially after witnessing
people subjected to traumatic situations. She pointed out that the Town was offering to help the
owners of the property next door move as the area was unsafe.
Mr. Davis asked if he could respond to her statement.
Chairman Brown stated that he could not, but if the Board asked them questions they could
answer the question.
Ms. Haywood replied that it she did not have a question, it was a statement of her opinion.
She added that it was not an issue that the Town could fix, but if VDOT would come in and expand
the roadway as they said they would the issue could be addressed.
Vice Chair Monroe stated that part of keeping an objective perspective was looking at the
laws in place. He stated that there was no law saying that a house could not be built there, and it
should not even be an issue at the table.
Chairman Brown agreed, and repeated that the Board could not tell him not to build a house
on the property as long as it was within the prescribed envelope. He summarized that the Town
had recommended that they not approve the exception and the neighbors were also asking that they
not approve it, so he reported that he was leaning toward not approving the exception.
Mr. Hess confirmed that the property in question was not eligible to be included in the
same buyout grant that the homes on Great Springs Road would be offered.
The Town Attorney confirmed that it was not, however it was subject to the same flooding
issues.
Chairman Brown made a motion to deny the Special Yard Exception as presented. Ms.
Haywood seconded the motion.
Chairman Brown called for a collective vote, 3 members were in favor, with 1 opposed,
and 1 absent. The motion passed by majority vote.
Mr. Melvin confirmed that they could proceed with building a dwelling on the lot so long
as it fits within the setbacks permitted.
Approval of the Tuesday, April 18th, 2023 meeting minutes
The Town Attorney recommended that the minutes be approved with one wording error
corrected.
Mr. Hess made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Ms. Haywood seconded the
motion.
8
Agenda
Wednesday, July 5th, 2023
TO: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
FROM: TAMMIE CLARY, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING
DIRECTOR
RE: JULY MONTHLY MEETING
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) will hold its regularly-scheduled monthly meeting on
Tuesday, July 18th, 2023 at 7:30PM at the Smithfield Center, 220 North church Street.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Tammie Clary at 1-(757)-365-4200 or
tclary@smithfieldva.gov.
cc: Town Council
William H. Riddick, III, Town Attorney
The Smithfield Times (or)
The Daily Press
File
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING DEPARTMENT
310 Institute St, PO Box 246 / Smithfield, VA 23431 / 1-(757)-365-4200 / Fax 1-(757)-357-9933
www.smithfieldva.gov
SMITHFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BZA) MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, July 18th, 2023, 7:30 PM
1) Community Development & Planning Director’s Report:
2) Upcoming Meetings and Activities
Monday, July 24th – 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings
Monday, August 1st – 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting
Tuesday, August 8th – 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, August 15th – 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting
Tuesday, August 15th – 7:30 PM – Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
3) Board Member Comments
4) *Public Hearing* SPECIAL YARD EXCEPTION (SYE) Application – Lot 98 Smithfield
Boulevard (TPIN: 22E-01-098), Michael Rowe, applicant. (Staff report, applications, and
assorted attachments enclosed.)
5) *Public Hearing* SPECIAL YARD EXCEPTION (SYE) Application – 604 Quail St
(TPIN:21A-09-003), Southeastern Property Management LLC C/O Tyrone Melvin applicant.
(Staff report, applications, and assorted attachments enclosed.)
6) Approval of the Tuesday, April 18th, 2023 meeting minutes (enclosed).
7) Adjournment.
8) BZA Group Photo.
***ATTENTION***
Mrs. Clary can be reached via email (tclary@smithfieldva.gov) or mail at the address below:
Town of Smithfield Community
Development & Planning Department
ATTN Tammie Clary, Director
PO Box 246
Smithfield, VA 23431
NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
Reasonable efforts will be made to provide assistance or special arrangements to qualified individuals with
disabilities in order to participate in or attend Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meetings. ADA compliant
hearing devices are available for use upon request. Please call 1-(757)-365-4200 at least twenty-four (24) hours
prior to the meeting date so that proper arrangements may be made.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BZA) STAFF REPORT: SPECIAL YARD
EXCEPTION (SYE)
PUBLIC HEARING: TUESDAY, JULY 18TH, 2023, 7:30 PM
Applicants Michael Rowe
405 Lane Crescent
Smithfield, VA 23430
Owners Same as above.
Property Lot 98 Smithfield Blvd
TPIN 22E-01-098
4.17 ac N side Smithfield Blvd.
700’ corner of Barclay Crescent & Smithfield Blvd.
Zoning Neighborhood Residential (NR), Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Area Overlay (CB-O), Floodplain Overlay
(FP-O) & Environmental Conservation (EC)
Adjacent Zoning Same as above.
Project Description The applicants have applied for a Special Yard Exception
for three encroachments into the required, thirty-five-foot
(35’) front yard setback (pursuant to Smithfield Zoning
Ordinance (SZO) Section 3.B.F.2.A.1). The first
encroachment is to allow a 27.44 foot front yard setback, a
28.46 foot front yard setback, and a 30.95 foot front yard
setback. These encroachments accommodate a new single-
family dwelling and are constituted by a portion of the front
corner of the proposed single-family dwelling and the
attached garage.
Staff Comments Due to the large Resource Protection Area that encumbers
this property, the only viable way to accommodate this
proposed dwelling is to encroach into the front yard
setback; therefore, staff recognize the obstacles present on
this parcel and recommend the BZA make an
accommodation for this parcel.
Please direct inquires to Tammie Clary at 1-(757)-365-4200 or tclary@smithfieldva.gov.
5/3/2023
X
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BZA) STAFF REPORT: SPECIAL YARD
EXCEPTION (SYE)
PUBLIC HEARING: TUESDAY, JULY 18TH, 2023, 7:30 PM
Applicants Innovative Developments LLC
C/O Christopher Davis
Lot 003 Quail St
Smithfield, VA 23430
Owners Southeastern Property Management, LLC
710 Mobjack Place
Newport News, VA 23606
Property Lot 003 Quail St
TPIN 21A-09-003
0.13 ac N side Quail St.
90’ corner of Great Springs Rd. & Quail St.
Zoning Downtown Neighborhood Residential (DNR)
Adjacent Zoning DNR & Highway Retail Commercial (HRC)
Project Description The applicants have applied for a Special Yard Exception
for an encroachment into the required, twenty-five-foot
(25’) rear yard setback (pursuant to Smithfield Zoning
Ordinance (SZO) Section 3.D.F.2.A.3), in accordance with
Article 12.F.7.b. The encroachment is to allow a 8.94 foot
rear yard setback to accommodate a 15 foot by 10 foot
uncovered deck and 6.10 feet of the primary structure.
These encroachments accommodate a new single-family
dwelling and are constituted by a portion of the rear of the
proposed single-family dwelling and the attached deck.
Staff Comments Due to the reoccurring flooding located in this area, Town
staff have advised the applicant against building a new
single-family dwelling. Town staff do not support this
application for a rear yard exception and recommend the
BZA deny this application.
Please direct inquires to Tammie Clary at 1-(757)-365-4200 or tclary@smithfieldva.gov.
TOWN OF SMITHFIELD
310 Institute Street, PO Box 246, Smithfield, VA 23431
Tel: 1-(757)-365-4200 Fax: 1-(757)-357-9933
www.smithfieldva.gov
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BZA) APPLICATION
5/20/2023
Date of Application__________ Date of Meeting _________
In accordance with Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, this application must be completed and all
materials (Ten (10) copies each of completed application and additional materials) as requested
below must be submitted to the town at least 21 days before the regularly scheduled BZA
meeting. If any new materials are submitted at the meeting, then the BZA may table the
application. The BZA meets the 3rd Tuesday of the month (unless otherwise noted) at 7:30 pm in
conference rooms A&B at the Smithfield Center, 220 North Church Street.
Applicant/Owner:
Innovative Developments LLC
______________________________________________________________________
Address:
Quail St, Smithfield VA
_______________________________________________________________________________
7576813200
Phone:_____________________
chrisdavis765@gmail.com
Email:_____________________________________
Check all that apply:
✔ e i d e ti i e
e i se e ti Other 6/6/2023
e i ei t e ti ✔ $200.00 fee s bmitted
reduce the setback
: ____________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________ _________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF CONSENT:
By signing below, the property owner/applicant/agent consents to entry upon the subject
property by public officers, employees, and agents of the Town of Smithfield to view the
site for purposes of processing, evaluating or deciding this application.
Name: (printed or typed) Christopher Davis
Name: (signature)
Version: 2021-02-09
From: Valerie Butler
To: Greg Brown; Home bhaywood
Cc: Tammie Clary
Subject: Fwd: Zoning request.
Date: Monday, July 3, 2023 3:37:04 PM
Warning: This email was sent from outside the organization and it has the same display
name as someone inside our organization. This is probably a phishing mail. Do not
respond, click on links, or open attachments unless you are certain that this email is safe.
Good afternoon Chairman Brown and Beth Haywood,
I inquired about a clearing/construction project in the Lakeside
community back in May. Here is the response I received from
Tammie Clary, Community Developer.
"I believe you are referencing the vacant parcel on the western side,
abutting Ms. Betty Ricks’ home (TPIN21A-09-003).
This parcel is owned by Southeastern Property Management LLC.
We have issued a stop work order on the property, as they do not
have a zoning permit to commence construction. We have
repeatedly reminded the contractor that the area is prone to flooding
and we highly discourage building a single family dwelling.
The contractor has insisted on pursuing construction and indicated
the desire to go before the BZA for a Special Yard Exception, in order
to build a structure that would encroach into the required yard
setbacks"
I am sending this email on behalf of the community and we are
asking that the zoning board to review this request very thoroughly
and decline it. This area directly off Great Spring Road is prone to
extensive flooding. The contractor has started clearing the land and
now asking for a yard set back “after the fact”. It is currently a
concern after the clearing as it could lead to more erosion during
heavy rains.
I will also be submitting a petition signed by the residents of the
community who also oppose approval of this request.
Check out this article and this video. A picture is worth a thousand words.
https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2022/08/03/trapped-in-harms-
way-as-disasters-mount/
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?
height=314&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FWeath
erNation%2Fvideos%2F335688354445947%2F&show_text=true&w
idth=560&t=0" width="560" height="429"
style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no"
frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-
write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share"
allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>
Respectfully submitted.
Valerie Cofer Butler
valbutler0120@gmail.com
757-651-7521
The Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) held its regular meeting on Tuesday, April
18th, 2023. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present:
Gregory Brown – Chairman
Gene Monroe – Vice Chairman
Christopher Gwaltney
Beth Haywood
Members absent:
Faye Seeley
Staff present:
Tammie Clary – Community Development & Planning Director
William H. Riddick III - Town Attorney
Mark Kluck – Planner
Nadya Jaudzimas – Administrative Assistant
Judith Lally – Board Member, Board of Historic and Architectural Review (BHAR)
Press: 0
Citizens: 6
Chairman Brown called the regular meeting to order.
2023 Elections
Chairman Brown reported that as it was the first meeting of the year elections would need
to be held for the offices of Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary.
The Town Attorney opened the floor to nominations for Chairman.
Ms. Haywood nominated Greg Brown as Chairman. Mr. Monroe seconded the nomination.
The Town Attorney inquired if there were any additional nominations, and hearing none
nominations were closed. He called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with
none opposed.
The Town Attorney opened the floor to nominations for Vice Chairman.
Chairman Brown nominated Gene Monroe as Vice Chairman. Mr. Gwaltney seconded the
nomination.
The Town Attorney inquired if there were any additional nominations, and hearing none
nominations were closed. He called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with
none opposed.
The Town Attorney reported that the office of Secretary needed to be approved, which was
generally held by the Town Clerk, Lesley King. He recommended the reappointment of Mrs. King.
Chairman Brown made a motion to reappoint Lesley King as Secretary. Ms. Haywood
seconded the nomination.
The Town Attorney called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with
none opposed.
Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals
April 18th, 2023
Community Development & Planning Director’s Report:
Tammie Clary, Director of Community Planning and Development, reported that there
were no additional updates.
Board Member Comments:
Ms. Haywood expressed that she was looking forward to continuing to serve the Town and
thanked the members for including her.
Chairman Brown welcomed Ms. Haywood to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
*Public Hearing* SPECIAL YARD EXCEPTION (SYE) Application – Lot 99 Smithfield
Boulevard
Mrs. Clary reported that the applicants had applied for a Special Yard Exception for two
encroachments into the required, thirty-five-foot (35’) front yard setback (pursuant to Smithfield
Zoning Ordinance (SZO) Section 3.B.F.2.A.1). She continued that the first encroachment was 3.58
feet, and the second encroachment was 16.17 feet. She added that the encroachments were to
accommodate a new single-family dwelling and were constituted by a portion of the front corner
of the proposed single-family dwelling and the attached garage.
Mrs. Clary stated that due to the large Resource Protection Area (RPA) adjacent to the
property, the only viable way to accommodate this proposed dwelling is to encroach into the front
yard setback. She reported that Town Staff recognized the obstacles present and recommended the
BZA make an accommodation for this parcel.
Chairman Brown opened the public hearing and reported that there were sign-ups to speak.
Russellette Savi reported that she was the applicant and had mistakenly signed to speak
thinking that it was an attendance sheet. She said that she did not have any additional information
to add to the staff report given.
Chairman Brown inquired if there were any additional attendees that wished to speak.
Seeing and hearing none the public hearing was closed.
The Town Attorney explained that the lot was platted well before the Chesapeake Bay Act
was adopted in 1979. He continued that if the lot had been designed at a time when they knew that
there would be a 100 foot RPA, then it would have been designed differently. He reported that in
discussions with Mrs. Clary, it was speculated that lot 98 was unbuildable. The Town Attorney
said that with that information in mind, the encroachment would likely not affect any neighbors.
He explained further that the applicants had the choice of encroaching on the RPA, which was
frowned upon, or seeking relief in this way.
Mr. Monroe asked why the plans could not be moved further to the left on the property.
The Town Attorney explained that the proposed structure was already at the 15-foot side
yard setback and could not be moved further.
Mr. Monroe stated that he had looked up the address on Google Maps and it looked as if
there were no structures on lot 97 or 98.
Mr. Gwaltney agreed with the Town Attorney’s statement that lot 98 was unbuildable with
the observance of the 100-foot RPA.
2
Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals
April 18th, 2023
Chairman Brown pointed out that if the street had terminated into a dead-end as opposed
to a cul-de-sac, then they would not have an issue with encroaching on the RPA.
Mr. Gwaltney agreed that the cul-de-sac crossed into the lot. He noted that the only real
encroachments were a porch and driveway, and historically the BZA prioritized protection of the
RPA. He added that the plans looked similar to applications that they had approved in the past.
Chairman Brown agreed that the geometry of the lot and the setbacks were similar to an
application approved last year.
Ms. Haywood reported that she drove out to see the property and spoke with some residents
of the neighborhood. She said that the neighbors she spoke with had no safety concerns with the
house being close to the road and had expressed enthusiasm for someone utilizing the property.
Mr. Gwaltney made a motion to approve the application as presented. Ms. Haywood
seconded the motion.
Chairman Brown called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none
opposed. The motion passed.
*Public Hearing* SPECIAL YARD EXCEPTION (SYE) Application – 132 Lumar Road
Mrs. Clary reported that the applicants have applied for a Special Yard Exception for an
encroachment into the required (pursuant to Smithfield Zoning Ordinance (SZO) Section
3.B.F.2.A.2), fifteen foot (15’), side yard setback, by approximately two feet (2’), to accommodate
a 12’ 6” by 34’ 9 5/16” addition, resulting in approximately twenty-five (25) square feet of the
addition located in the required side yard setback. She continued that this encroachment would
accommodate the proposed addition, enabling it to remain uniform with the primary structure.
Chairman Brown opened the public hearing. He reported that there were a few attendees
signed up to speak.
Kristin Munford of 134 Lumar Road in Smithfield reported that she did not take issue with
what her neighbors were proposing for the addition to their house. She stated that she was speaking
to request a delay of approval until a new survey could be completed. She reported that the survey
that had been attached to their application did not line up with the markers from a survey that was
done for her property. She described the discrepancy of the values given in each survey, which
equated to 10.1228 ft taken off the front of her property. She continued that she had included the
plats from the neighboring properties to illustrate that none of the other properties had been skewed
in such a way.
Mr. Gwaltney thanked Mrs. Munford for including all of the information that she brought
for the Board’s review. He explained that surveying equipment had become more precise over
time, and a common practice of surveyors had been to use existing surveys to calculate bearings
when measuring out a lot. He recognized her concern that she may be losing property, but
explained that though the numbers may not match, it was still the same box that it was supposed
to be.
Mrs. Munford stated that the survey for her neighbor’s home was no longer square but was
a trapezoid shape. She expressed concern about the timing of when the surveys were completed
for her property versus the other properties on her road and that the compass directions on the
surveys were not all showing from North - South.
3
Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals
April 18th, 2023
The Town Attorney stated that the direction did not matter as the columns could be
reversed. He stated that he could explain further after all who wanted to speak at the public hearing
had spoken.
Chairman Brown reported that there was one other person signed up.
The Town Attorney pointed out that Mrs. Munford and the other speaker were presenting
at the podium together.
Brian Lally of 226 South Church Street in Smithfield stated that it was revealing when
looking at the adjacent properties from the standpoint of when the original survey was completed.
He continued that the lots on that road were almost perfect rectangles for a distance of about 1200
feet. Mr. Lally explained that he had reviewed many surveys and it was unusual to see plats that
lined up at zero (0) degrees, zero (0) minutes, and zero (0) seconds. He continued that to see lot 6
skewed in the midst of the aligned neighboring lots was due to the position of the pins. Mr. Lally
reported that they had looked today and could not locate the pins on Lumar Road. He stated that
per the current survey it showed that 134 Lumar Road was 8 feet off the paved road onto the other
side of the drainage ditch and questioned if that was really where the property line was.
The Town Attorney confirmed that the property line was on the back of the drainage ditch.
Mr. Lally stated that if that pin placement was correct then from lot 7 to lot 6 the line was
off three (3) degrees, which equated to 10 feet onto Mrs. Munford’s property.
Mrs. Munford confirmed that she was able to speak along with Mr. Lally. She reported that
her lot was the smallest on Lumar Road and this discrepancy would take her lot from 69 feet along
Lumar Road to less than 59 feet.
The Town Attorney pointed out that Mrs. Munford’s survey listed her property as having
69 feet.
Mrs. Munford recognized that was on her survey, but her survey did not line up with the
survey for 132 Lumar Road.
The Town Attorney explained that Mrs. Munford did not need to worry about another
property survey.
Mr. Lally and Mrs. Munford stated that the driveway at 132 Lumar would then be on her
property.
The Town Attorney replied that their driveway was in the wrong location.
Mrs. Munford agreed, but her point surrounded what the impact on her property would be
if the survey done for 132 Lumar Road would be allowed to remain in place.
The Town Attorney clarified that the BZA did not have bearing on the survey and the issue
was a civil matter between Mrs. Munford and her neighbor.
Mr. Lally replied that the BZA was approving the survey for 132 Lumar Road.
The Town Attorney said that the BZA was not approving a survey.
Mr. Lally stated that the BZA was approving zoning.
The Town Attorney explained that Mrs. Munford’s pins defining her property were in place
and illustrated that was her property and encouraged her not to worry about her neighbor’s survey.
Mrs. Munford acknowledged that the box used to mark her property was hers, but
questioned what happens when her neighbor is building off of numbers that overlap her box.
4
Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals
April 18th, 2023
The Town Attorney pointed out that lot 6 and lot 7, which was Mrs. Munford’s lot, showed
iron pins were present.
Mrs. Munford again expressed concern about how the North-South direction was shown
on the survey for lot 6.
Mr. Gwaltney explained that the surveyor for lot 6 had used the State Plane Coordinate
System that was required for new subdivisions, and it was different than magnetic coordinate
systems. He agreed with the Town Attorney’s assertion that her property was drawn to the pin, or
monument.
Mr. Lally stated that he agreed, but he thought a licensed surveyor would note if a pin was
relocated.
The Town Attorney reasserted that the pin had not been relocated.
Mr. Lally pointed out the position of the gravel driveway and Mrs. Munford stated that was
not her concern at this point as the driveway was in different locations on each survey.
The Town Attorney explained that all of Mrs. Munford’s concerns may be exactly right,
but it did not have any bearing on what the application and public hearing were for.
Chairman Brown agreed that the BZA could not address the concerns she raised.
The Town Attorney reiterated that the BZA was being asked to grant relief from the setback
on the other side of the property which would allow them to complete the addition. He added that
the location in consideration does not impact Mrs. Munford. He explained that at the time the home
was built, the County Zoning Ordinance was utilized. He continued that the County Zoning
Ordinance at that time did not match the Town Zoning Ordinance presently and that the issue could
be seen across the Town. The Town Attorney stated that the way to cure the zoning violation was
to obtain a yard exception. He concluded that the BZA’s possible approval of the application did
not sanction their survey or Mrs. Munford’s survey.
Mrs. Munford reiterated that she did not have a problem with her neighbor’s project, but
only took issue with the survey’s not lining up.
Mr. Gwaltney repeated his opinion that the difference was due to advancements in the
technology used for measuring coordinates now versus previous methods.
The Town Attorney added that there was always the possibility of human error having been
involved. He reported to Mrs. Munford that surveys were not recorded in the courthouse.
Mr. Monroe asked how Mrs. Munford thought the application was going to affect her.
She reiterated that she thought she would have 10 feet of her property taken off. She
apologized and again stated that she had no issues with her neighbor’s addition.
Ms. Haywood thanked Mrs. Munford for presenting her concern to the Board.
Mr. Gwaltney complimented her research.
Chairman Brown inquired if there were any additional attendees that wished to speak.
Seeing and hearing none the public hearing was closed.
The Town Attorney recapped that Smithfield had taken a modern zoning ordinance and
placed it over an annexed area of Town. He reported that when the homes were built, they were in
compliance, however, presently they were not, which caused the Board to have to review the issue
on countless occasions.
The Board members discussed the issue with Ms. Haywood as she was new to the BZA.
5
Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals
April 18th, 2023
Mr. Monroe expressed concern that the two property owners were paying taxes for the
same patch of property.
The Town Attorney stated that they were not because the pins had not moved.
Mr. Gwaltney made a motion to approve the application as presented. Ms. Haywood
seconded the motion.
Chairman Brown called for a collective vote, three (3) members present were in favor, with
one (1) opposed. The motion passed by the majority.
Approval of the Tuesday, August 16th, 2022 continued meeting minutes.
The Town Attorney recommended that the continued meeting minutes be approved as
presented.
Mr. Gwaltney made a motion to approve the continued minutes as presented. Chairman
Brown seconded the motion.
Chairman Brown called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none
opposed. The motion passed.
Approval of the Tuesday, August 16th, 2022 meeting minutes
The Town Attorney recommended that the minutes be approved as presented.
Mr. Gwaltney made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Chairman Brown
seconded the motion.
Chairman Brown called for a collective vote, all members present were in favor, with none
opposed. The motion passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m.
________________________ ______________________________
Greg Brown - Chairman Tammie Clary - Community Development &
Planning Director
6
Get email alerts for Smithfield
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.