Board of Zoning Appeals

Wednesday, December 13th, 2023 TO: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FROM: TAMMIE CLARY, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING DIRECTOR RE: DECEMBER MONTHLY MEETING The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) will hold its regularly-scheduled monthly meeting on Tuesday, December 19th, 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, December 19th, 2023, 7:30 PM 1) Community Development & Planning Director’s Report: 2) Upcoming Meetings and Activities Tuesday, December 26th – 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings Tuesday, January 2nd – 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting Tuesday, January 9th – 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, January 16th – 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting Tuesday, January 16th – 7:30 PM – Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting 3) Board Member Comments 4) *Public Hearing* SPECIAL USE/YARD EXCEPTION (SYE) Application – 48 Riverside Drive, Thomas Grover, applicant. (Staff report, applications, and assorted attachments enclosed.) 5) *Public Hearing* SPECIAL YARD EXCEPTION (SYE) Application – 605 Jericho Road, John and Stephanie Caggiano, applicants. (Staff report, applications, and assorted attachments enclosed.) 6) Approval of the Tuesday, July 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 USE/YARD EXCEPTION (SUE/SYE) PUBLIC HEARING: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19TH, 2023, 7:30 PM Applicant Thomas Grover 48 Riverside Drive Smithfield, VA 23430 Owners Brian and Jonetta Moody 48 Riverside Drive Smithfield, VA 23430 Property 48 Riverside Drive TPIN 22D-03-I005 0.75 ac S side Riverside Drive. 482’ E of Riverside Drive & Faye Drive Zoning Neighborhood Residential (N-R) Adjacent Zoning N-R, Environmental Conservation (E-C), Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay (CB-O) & Floodplain Overlay (FP-O) Project Description The applicant is requesting a Special Use/Yard Exception under the provisions of Article 12.F.6.a to allow an encroachment of 2.2 feet into the 15-foot side yard setback for a detached garage that exceeds a height of 16 feet. The applicant intends to modify the detached garage by adding a second story, which will bring the overall height to 23’ 2 1/16”. Pursuant to the Smithfield Zoning Ordinance Article 2 Section P.8, when a garage exceeds sixteen feet in height, the garage must meet the primary structure’s side yard setback of the underlying zoning district on all lot lines. The property is currently zoned Neighborhood Residential (N-R) and does require a 15-foot side yard setback for primary structures and accessory structures over 16 feet in height. The existing garage has a 12.8-foot setback from the right-side property line, which is permitted by right as the existing garage is no taller than 16 feet. Staff Comments Town staff support this application for a Special Yard Exception and recommend the BZA approve this application as presented. Please direct inquires to Tammie Clary at 1-(757)-365-4200 or tclary@smithfieldva.gov.  48 Riverside Drive tome.icecream1@gmail.com X Enlarge the existing detached garage by adding a second floor to accommodate and accessory dwelling unit  12/12/2023 48 Riverside Drive tome.icecream1@gmail.com X X $800 SUP 1)Construct an accessory dwelling unit over the existing detached garage located on the property at 48 Riverside Drive SUP 2) Waiver of height limitation for accessory buildings to allow the detached garage to be taller than the primary dwelling My wife Sheryl and I really appreciate this opportunity to put together a place where we would like to spend our re�rement years. The ability for Sheryl to be able to spend her day on one floor would be a big relief for us. She has fallen 4 �mes in the last 2 years and resists going up and down several �mes a day where we now live. Along with the con�nued occasion to have 3 of our 12 grandchildren close by again by living on the same property. A�er mee�ng with Mark Kluck and Tammie Clary we received the Revised Comprehensive Plan from July 5, 2022. We found it encouraging when reading through all the updated provisions of the current Vision and Objec�ves for the Town of Smithfield. Especially concerning Affordable Housing for the elderly and the promo�ng of building community for genera�ons to come. Which speaks to our family, where 11 of our 12 grandchildren along with their families are local and enjoy very much visi�ng Smithfield. With the purpose of the new Comprehensive Plan at hand we are making our submission for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on the property of Brian and Joneta Moody u�lizing the stand-alone garage located on the far end of their property. Also no�ng the revision of uses of (ADU)s concerning Neighborhood Residen�al (NR) zones on exis�ng single-family proper�es. As far as the Surrounding Proper�es we do not believe that this (ADU) structure will infringe or in any way interfere or cause an annoyance to the neighbors. With our submission of the Special Yard Excep�on (SYE) permit along with our inten�ons that will be published in the local papers we hope to be able to receive the required favorable acknowledgement from neighbors as well as the Planning Commission and Town Council at the Public Hearing. On Current and future neighborhood condi�ons we believe that the integrity of the design of the (ADU) will be in sync with current structures in this subdivision of Moonfield Estates. On Pedestrian and vehicular traffic paterns. All parking will be able to be accommodated on-site on this lot. Adequate public facili�es are available on-site as well, with both City water and Sewage already exi�ng at the primary dwelling.  18'-0 3/4" 10'-2 5/8" 5'-1 5/16" (MEAN HEIGHT) 23'-2 1/16" (NOT TO EXCEED 24'-0") 5'-1 5/16" Detached garages may exceed 16 ft but not 24 ft if they meet the meet primary setbacks. Garage cannot exceed the height of the house (SZO 2.P.8) BZA - SYE PC and TC - SUP for accessory apartment - SUP for Waiver of height limitations for accessory buildings  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BZA) STAFF REPORT: SPECIAL YARD EXCEPTION (SYE) PUBLIC HEARING: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19TH, 2023, 7:30 PM Applicant John and Stephanie Caggiano 605 Jericho Road Smithfield, VA 23430 Owners Ibid. Property 605 Jericho Road TPIN 21-01-090 0.35 ac E side Jericho Road 647’ NE of Jericho Road and Joshua Road Zoning Community Conservation (C-C) Adjacent Zoning C-C, Environmental Conservation (E-C), Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay (CB-O) & Floodplain Overlay (FP-O) Project Description The applicants are requesting a Special Yard Exception (SYE) under the provisions of Article 12.F.7.a. for an encroachment into the required twenty-five-foot (25’) side yard setback (pursuant to the Smithfield Zoning Ordinance (SZO) Article 3.A.F.2.B), in accordance with SZO Article 12.F.7.d to erect a single-family dwelling on a legal nonconforming lot. The proposed side yard setback for both sides of the dwelling will be no less than sixteen feet (16’) which would result in an encroachment of no more than nine feet (9’) into the required twenty-five foot (25’) side yard setback. These encroachments accommodate a new single-family dwelling and are constituted by a portion of both sides of the proposed single-family dwelling. Staff Comments Town staff support this application for a Special Yard Exception and recommend the BZA approve this application as presented. Please direct inquires to Tammie Clary at 1-(757)-365-4200 or tclary@smithfieldva.gov.  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 Preservation Area (CBPA) Exception. She stated that the CBPA Exception 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 CBPA Exception 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, the 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 Smithfield Boulevard at their previous meeting. The Town Attorney detailed the history of 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 lot’s 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. Plummie and Mrs. Virgie Tynes were included with the first builders in the area and were the first owners of 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. Emmit 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 have 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 a negative impact on the value of the properties. Mr. Addison expressed appreciation for being able to speak at the public hearing and asked 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 about 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 a 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 were 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 was concerned 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 of 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 on the opposite side. 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 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 concerns 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 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 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 questions for the applicant. The Town Attorney advised that they should let the builder speak, then close the public hearing portion, and proceed to 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. He 5 Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals July 18th, 2023 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 in 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. 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 runoff in the watershed in that 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 should be left up to the buyer. He added that he meant no disrespect to the Board, but they were 6 Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals July 18th, 2023 about progress in the Town and not taking away from it. Mr. Melvin 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 Saunders 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 than 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 close to the houses on either side. Mr. Melvin clarified that they had adhered to the side yard setback requirements. 7 Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals July 18th, 2023 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, and 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 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. Chairman Brown called for a collective vote; all members present were in favor, with none opposed. The motion passed. 8 Smithfield Board of Zoning Appeals July 18th, 2023 The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. ________________________ ______________________________ Greg Brown - Chairman Tammie Clary - Community Development & Planning Director 9