COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING DEPARTMENT 310 …

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

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2021

TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOHN SETTLE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING DIRECTOR RE: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Planning Commission will hold its regular meeting on Tuesday, March 9th, 2021 at 6:30 PM at the Smithfield Center (220 North Church Street, Smithfield, VA 23430). Please call 1-(757)-365-4200 or email [email protected] with any questions. Enclosures cc: Town Council

William H. Riddick, III, Town Attorney The Smithfield Times The Daily Press File

http://www.smithfieldva.gov/

mailto:[email protected]

SMITHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA

Tuesday, March 9th, 2021

1) Community Development & Planning Director’s Report: - At its Tuesday, October 13th, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission tasked Town staff with examining ways to adequately address blighted properties within the Town limits. At this time, Town staff have determined that adopting a spot blight abatement ordinance is likely the best way to address these properties. A draft spot blight abatement ordinance has been drafted at this time- Town staff met with the Town Attorney on Thursday, March 4th, 2021 and are currently working to resolve all issues identified and discussed at that meeting. A revised draft ordinance is forthcoming.

-Summit Design & Engineering Services, PLLC, our consultants for the 2020/2021 Comprehensive Plan update, have developed a website to assist in providing transparency for this planning process. The website is still under development, but is accessible via this link: https://smithfieldvacomprehensiveplan.com/. A draft existing conditions report (accessible via the link) for the Comprehensive Plan was recently circulated to Town staff for review. Comments were returned on this draft last week.

2) Upcoming Meetings and Activities:

Tuesday, March 16th, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting Monday, March 29th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings Tuesday, March 30th, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings Tuesday, April 6th, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting Tuesday, April 13th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting

3) Public Comments: The public is invited to speak to the Planning Commission on any matters, except scheduled public hearing(s). Please use the sign-up sheet. Comments are limited to five (5) minutes per person. Any required response(s) from the Town will be provided in writing following the meeting.

4) Planning Commission Comments:

5) *Public Hearing* Special Sign Exception (SSE) Application (After-the-fact) – Cypress

Creek Parkway, C/O Gail Blecher, applicant. (Staff report, application, and illustrations enclosed.)

6) *Public Hearing* SSE, Entrance Corridor Overlay Design Review (After-the-fact), Buffer Modification Request & Site Plan Amendment Applications – 865 West Main Street, C/O Gordon Holloway, applicant. (Staff report, applications, and illustrations enclosed.)

7) Approval of the Tuesday, February 9th, 2021 meeting minutes. (Enclosed.)

8) Adjournment ***ATTENTION***

Owing to the pandemic, we are encouraging remote public comment on all land use applications, whether or not a public hearing is required. If you do not feel comfortable with attending a meeting in person, please submit your comments in writing to Mr. John Settle, Community Development & Planning Director. Your comments will be conveyed to the appropriate Board or Commission. Mr. Settle can be reached via email ([email protected]) or mail at the address below:

Town of Smithfield Community Development & Planning Department

ATTN John Settle, 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 Planning Commission 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.

https://smithfieldvacomprehensiveplan.com/


PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT:

*PUBLIC HEARING* SPECIAL SIGN EXCEPTION APPLICATION (AFTER-THE-FACT)

TUESDAY, MARCH 9TH, 2021, 6:30 PM Applicant Cypress Creek Owners’ Association, Inc. C/O Gail Blecher PO Box 2068 Poquoson, VA 23662 Owner Town of Smithfield, Virginia C/O Michael Stallings PO Box 246 Smithfield, VA 23430 Property Cypress Creek Parkway 60’ Public Right-of-Way (ROW) Cypress Creek Subdivision Entrance Cypress Creek Parkway & Fairway Drive Zoning N/A Adjacent Zoning Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay (CBO), Community Conservation

(CC), Entrance Corridor Overlay (ECO), Environmental Conservation (EC), Floodplain Overlay (FPO) & Suburban Residential (SR)

Project Description The applicant has already installed a 5.5’ tall, 7.5 square foot detached sign in the

landscaped median strip of Cypress Creek Parkway’s intersection with Fairway Drive. The applicants have requested an after-the-fact Special Sign Exception (SSE), pursuant to Smithfield Zoning Ordinance (SZO) Section 10.M, as the sign conflicts with the following SZO Sections:

10.H.1: The sign is technically a prohibited “off-premises sign.” 10.H.8: The applicants did not have the express permission of the Town

Council to locate the sign in the public right-of-way (ROW). 10.K.1.b(1): The sign is located within a public ROW. 10.K.1.b(2): The sign is now the third subdivision entrance sign for the Cypress

Creek subdivision- all subdivisions are limited to no more than two subdivision entrance signs, depending on the signs’ configurations.

The applicant’s sign is just one aspect of a larger effort by the Cypress Creek Owners’ Association to further ensure its community’s safety. Two solar-powered security cameras mounted to twelve foot (12’) tall poles are proposed within the vicinity of the same entrance, as well as a single identical camera apparatus at another community facility at 13301 Great Spring Road (TPINs 21-01-084C & 21-01-084C1).

Recommendation Town staff recommend approval under the following conditions:

(a) Prior to the issuance of a sign permit, the applicant must undertake the following steps: (1) Furnish the Town with a notarized affidavit, signed by the president of

the Cypress Creek Owners’ Association, binding the association to the perpetual maintenance of the sign, including (but not limited to) its repair, removal, and replacement.

(2) Pursuant to SZO Section 10.H.8, the applicants must seek and receive the express (after-the-fact) permission of the Town Council at its Tuesday, April 6th, 2021 meeting to locate their sign in the public ROW.

(b) This approval applies solely to the sign shown in the submitted plans, and that any replacement sign, if larger or substantially different from this one, must be reviewed and decided by the Planning Commission (and the Town Council, if applicable) through a new SSE application.

Please direct inquiries to John Settle at 1-(757)-365-4200 or [email protected].


PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT:

SPECIAL SIGN EXCEPTION APPLICATION (*PUBLIC HEARING*) ECO DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (AFTER-THE-FACT)

BUFFER MODIFICATION REQUEST APPLICATION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION

TUESDAY, MARCH 9TH, 2021, 6:30 PM

Applicant SB Cox Ready Mix, Inc.

C/O Gordon Holloway 865 West Main Street Smithfield, VA 23430

Owner Ibid. Property 865 West Main Street TPIN 21-01-071 8.48 ac SE West Main Street 150’ SW West Main Street & Hearn Drive Zoning Heavy Industrial (I2) &

Entrance Corridor Overlay (ECO) Adjacent Zoning Community Conservation (CC),

Highway Retail Commercial (HRC), Light Industrial (I1), Mobile Home Park (MHP), ECO & I2

Project Description On Monday, August 10th, 2020, Town staff issued a zoning permit to the

applicants for the expansion of the existing retail sales establishment (hardware store) located on the premises, a use permissible by-right within the Heavy Industrial (I2) zoning district, pursuant to Smithfield Zoning Ordinance (SZO) Sections 3.I.B.13 & 3.L.B.15. This zoning permit applied only to the interior commercial renovations that were to take place on the premises, with the understanding that exterior improvements would eventually be proposed to accommodate the hardware store expansion in site plans that were forthcoming at the time.

Town staff received the first submittal of these anticipated site plans on

Tuesday, September 29th, 2020. Since this time, a lengthy review process with three subsequent submittals has ensued. In order to accommodate the applicants’ proposed project, what were initially-expected to be routine site plan amendment and Entrance Corridor Overlay (ECO) design review applications grew to include applications for a Special Sign Exception (SSE) and buffer modification request. All four applications are intended to permit a series of site improvements shown in the enclosed plans, which include (but are not limited to) landscaping, expanded parking areas, visual screening, and signage, all of which are intended to accommodate the expansion of the existing hardware store. The two additional applications submitted by the applicants are explained in the subsequent paragraphs.

Pursuant to SZO Section 10.E.2, only one wall sign is permitted for each

permitted use on the premises. There are currently three such signs on the premises that are incidental to the hardware store use, and the applicants have proposed to replace one of these existing legal nonconforming signs, which would result in a conflict with SZO Sections 10.E.2 & 10.I.3. As

such, an SSE and a public hearing are necessary pursuant to SZO Section 10.M.

Pursuant to SZO Sections 3.R.E.2 & 9.E.10(b)(4), a forty-foot (40’) buffer

exists along West Main Street, in which certain site improvements are only permissible following the authorization of the Planning Commission. As the applicants are proposing to install a series of trees and shrubs required through other components of the SZO within this buffer, a buffer modification request has been submitted pursuant to SZO Sections 3.R.G.2.g & 9.E.10(d).

It is important for Town staff to note that a portion of these applications is being treated as an “after-the-fact” request for approval. This refers specifically to the ECO design review application, as certain exterior changes to the primary building have already occurred. The applicants have indicated that, owing largely to the interior commercial renovations already authorized, certain structural safeguards needed to be implemented to the building’s exterior to preserve the structural integrity of the building while interior work was being undertaken.

Recommendation Town staff recommend approval under the following conditions, which (save for items “d” through “f”) must be resolved prior to the issuance of a zoning permit:

(a) The applicants must resolve all comments, if any, generated on their

applications by the Virginia Department of Transportation. (b) Pursuant to SZO Sections 3.R.K.2.h & 9.G, a landscaping bond in an

amount estimated by a licensed professional landscape architect must be submitted to the Town. The amount of such landscaping bond shall be 120% of the total of the estimated cost of the landscaping based on unit prices for new public or private sector landscaping in the Town. Such landscaping bond shall be payable to and held by the Town Council, and the form of such shall be approved by the Town Attorney.

(c) In accordance with the comments received by the Isle of Wight County Stormwater Division (IOW SWM), the applicants must replace the word “proposed” with “future” in all notations on sheets four and six pertaining to either the five foot (5’) wide concrete sidewalk along West Main Street and/or the corresponding seven foot (7’) wide public ingress/egress easement.

(d) A deed of public ingress/egress easement must be furnished at the applicants’ expense, to be reviewed by the Town Attorney, signed by the Town Manager, and recorded at the Isle of Wight County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office- sheet four of the approved site plans must serve as an exhibit to this deed. This deed must be recorded after the Town has performed a final inspection of the sidewalk and before the Town will accept any responsibility for its maintenance.

(e) In accordance with the note on sheet four of the applicants’ plans, the applicants must apply for a zoning permit in 2022 for the installation of the proposed sidewalk prior to 2023, in accordance with the comments generated on their applications by IOW SWM.

(f) Failure to install the sidewalk shown on sheet four of the approved site plans, and/or the failure to subsequently record the deed noted above, will result in the withholding of the applicants’ landscaping bond and/or development plan/permit approvals for any future development on the property.

Please direct inquiries to John Settle at 1-(757)-365-4200 or [email protected].


The Smithfield Planning Commission held its regular meeting on February 9th, 2021 at

6:30 p.m. at the Smithfield Center.

Members present:

Randy Pack – Chairman

Charles Bryan – Vice Chairman

Mike Swecker

Julia Hillegass

Thomas Pope

Michael Torrey

Raynard Gibbs

Staff present:

John Settle – Community Development & Planning Director

William H. Riddick, III – Town Attorney

Tammie Clary - Planner

Press: 0

Citizens: 11

Chairman Pack welcomed everyone to the meeting. All in attendance stood for the Pledge

of Allegiance.

2021 Election of Officers:

The Town Attorney opened the floor for nominations for Chairman of the Planning

Commission.

Mr. Torrey nominated Randy Pack and Mrs. Hillegass seconded the nomination. With no

other nominations, the Town Attorney called for the vote.

On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mr. Torrey voted aye, Dr. Pope voted

aye, Mrs. Hillegass voted aye, Mr. Swecker voted aye, Mr. Raynard Gibbs voted aye, Vice

Chairman Bryan voted aye, and Chairman Pack voted aye. There were no votes against the

motion. The motion passed.

The Town Attorney stated that Mr. Pack was re-elected as Chairman. He opened the floor

for nominations for Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission.

Chairman Pack nominated Charles Bryan for Vice Chairman. Dr. Pope seconded the

motion. With no other nominations, the Town Attorney called for the vote.

On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mr. Torrey voted aye, Dr. Pope voted

aye, Mrs. Hillegass voted aye, Mr. Swecker voted aye, Mr. Raynard Gibbs voted aye, Vice



The Town Attorney stated that Mr. Bryan was re-elected as Vice Chairman.

Chairman Pack thanked the Planning Commission for his re-election as Chairman.

Community Development & Planning Director’s Report:

Mr. Settle reported that at its Tuesday, October 13th, 2020 meeting, the Planning

Commission tasked Town staff with examining ways to adequately address blighted properties

within Town limits. At this time, Town staff have determined that adopting a spot blight

abatement ordinance is likely the best way to address these properties. A draft spot blight

Smithfield Planning Commission February 9th, 2021

2

abatement ordinance has been drafted at this time. Town staff are awaiting feedback following

the review of the Town Attorney. On Friday, January 15th, 2021, the applicant for the site plan

amendment, Entrance Corridor Overlay (ECO) design review, and ECO waiver applications for

601 N. Church Street informed Town staff that they were withdrawing their applications.

Although the Planning Commission had already conditionally-approved the applications at its

Tuesday, November 10th, 2020 meeting, Town staff had not issued a zoning permit for the

proposed project, as they had not satisfied all of the conditions attached to their approval. The

applicant cited the changing priorities of the property owner as the reason for the withdrawal.

Upcoming Meetings and Activities:

Tuesday, February 16th, 6:30 PM – Board of Historic & Architectural Review Meeting

Monday, February 22nd, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings

Tuesday, February 23rd, 3:00 PM – Town Council Committee Meetings

Tuesday, March 2nd, 6:30 PM – Town Council Meeting

Tuesday, March 9th, 4:00 PM – Pinewood Heights Management Team Meeting

Tuesday, March 9th, 6:30 PM – Planning Commission Meeting

Public Comments:

Chairman Pack explained that the public was invited to speak to the Planning Commission

on any matters, except scheduled public hearings. Please use the sign-up sheet. Comments are

limited to five (5) minutes per person. Any required response from the town will be provided in

writing following the meeting. Chairman Pack explained that speakers should state their name and

address for the record.

Lauriano Gonzalez resides at 20521 Madison Court in Gatling Pointe. He moved from a

high-density area of Ford Lauderdale, Florida. He understands that the county needs to grow. He

decided to move to Smithfield because it is a rural area, and he didn’t like the high-density areas that

realtors were showing him in places like Chesapeake. He was concerned about the Mallory Scott

Farm development of 1,200 homes after he read about it in the newspaper. He explained that the

roads in that vicinity are two-lane country roads. He is concerned about traffic on Nike Park Road

and Battery Park Road, and wondered how those roads would hold up against two-thousand cars at

5:00 PM when everyone is waiting to get through the traffic light. There are many days when the

intersection has a lot of traffic at the stoplight. He asked how many of the Planning Commissioners

reside in the vicinity of that intersection.

Chairman Pack stated that all of the Planning Commissioners live within the town limits.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that none of the Commissioners live in the vicinity of Battery Park Road

or Nike Park Road and therefore, do not experience the traffic problems at present, and will likely

not experience them once the development is built. He explained that taxes would probably increase

to accommodate the necessity for road improvements. He stated that the new bike path and bridge

across the creek was $8,000,000.00 and wondered what it would cost to widen Nike Park Rd all the

way out to Route 17. He was also concerned about the school system with the increased school-age

population of the development. He wondered about costs for new schools, buses, and hiring more

police officers for safety. He stated that his concern is that the project will create a monster. He

stated that anyone who does not live in the area where the high-density development is proposed

cannot understand the concerns held by residents of that area about traffic and excessive taxes. He is


3

opposed to the density of the Mallory Scott Farm development. He feared that motorists would

begin to cut through Rescue to avoid traffic at the Battery Park Rd & Nike Park Rd intersection.

Richard Gillerlain lives at 22501 Tally Ho Drive in Carrollton, Virginia. He agreed with Mr.

Gonzalez and his concerns about the proposed Mallory Scott Farm development. He asked

Chairman Pack if he came to the Planning Commission and spoke as an expert on restaurants, would

he find that humorous? He asked Dr. Pope if he spoke about medical conditions if he would

consider it humorous? He was impressed at the December meeting that one of the Planning

Commissioners had already picked out one of the key points of the proposed project which is water

and sewer. He was appalled that the person that answered the water and sewer question had no

expertise in that area. Mr. Gillerlain stated that he has expertise since he ran a sewer system at the

Norfolk Naval Base for over two years. He explained that he knows what it takes to maintain and

service a development of such a high density. The developer proffered to build the two sewer lift

stations in the development; not the ones needed along Battery Park Road. They will feed into sewer

lines not built for that capacity. He believed that, at the very least, pumps would need to be replaced

and maybe wholesale replacement of sewer lift stations and the lines will be necessary. Mr.

Gillerlain stated that water is another issue. The developer stated it was not an issue since Isle of

Wight has an open-ended water contract. The developer never mentioned the price affiliated with

this. There are people in Benn’s Grant paying over $500.00 per month for water. The new

development’s HOA will want green grass and the water bills will be high. He explained that he was

available to share his expertise if anyone wanted to talk to him about the water and sewer issues.

Another point of contact would be the former head of the water system for Norfolk Naval Base who

lives in Smithfield. Mr. Gillerlain stated that he could explain the ways to do it and the ways not to

do it. He advised not to look to Isle of Wight for help. They will charge too much for the water.

They cannot run a line to the Town because they do not have a service district to run it to. He asked

the Planning Commissioners to look into the water and sewer issues. He has other concerns as well,

such as fire and police. He stated that when Mr. Napolitano, the developer, first talked about the

Mallory Scott Farm development, he referred to it as the “elephant in the room.” The “elephant” is a

“white elephant” that the developer will leave for the citizens to figure out.

Melissa Lambert resides at 702 Gatling Pointe Pkwy. She attended the meeting but had not

planned to speak. After hearing Mr. Gonzalez speak, she began thinking of her personal position.

She explained that she was probably the newest member of the community who will be impacted by

the proposed development. She grew up in Virginia Beach, moved to Norfolk and has lived in

Smithfield for about two years. She experienced a lot of change, growth, and development while

living in Virginia Beach and Norfolk. She stated that anyone who has lived in Smithfield for a long

time might not know how good they have it. She is happy to be in Smithfield after living in Virginia

Beach and Norfolk. She does not want to ever move back to those areas. She has two children; 13

and 9. They both attend Norfolk Christian Schools. She drives everyday to Norfolk to take them to

school. Her children were less than thrilled to move to Smithfield because they thought it had

nothing to offer and no quality of life, to include stores such as Starbucks and Chick-fil-a. However,

after two years, they have become thrilled to live in Smithfield after travelling back and forth to

Norfolk for birthday parties- now they love living here. They do not want to live in an urban, high

population community again. Ms. Lambert explained that with the proposed development they


4

might as well have stayed in Norfolk. She is disappointed that after only two years of being in

Smithfield and moving here for a better quality of life for her children there will be 1,200 homes

nearby. In addition to what the other public speakers have said, she is curious about the

consequences of such a high quantity of homes in the development. It makes her think of crime. She

is concerned for her overall quality of life. As a single mother, quality of life is really important to

her. She encouraged the Planning Commissioners to give the development careful consideration.

She understands growth but there is something to be said for rural living, quality of life, a strong

community, and a strong family base. She hoped that the Planning Commissioners would consider

her concerns while deciding how to move forward.

Karen Collier lives at 105 Commodore Lane in Gatling Pointe. She moved here from

Philadelphia for the same reasons as Ms. Lambert. Smithfield is a beautiful and peaceful place to

live. She agreed with all of the other speakers. She stated that, at this point, the Town of Smithfield

has a population of approximately 8,000 people. If there are 1,200 new units developed with a

family in each unit, the Town will increase in size by 30% to 40% within a year’s time. All of the

challenges that others spoke of will hit the Town hard and fast. There would be no way to come up

to pace with the people moving into the town. If the growth happened over twenty years, maybe the

Town could grow along with it. The density is just too much. She also did not like the developer

asking for 250 homes originally and now asking for 1,200 homes. She is concerned about the

choices the Town will make in the future for other developers. If the Town allows this developer to

increase his proposed number of units by approximately one-thousand, this sets a dangerous

precedent for the consideration of future applications.

David Cashman of 103 Winterberry Circle in Smithfield, Virginia stated that he moved here

from the Baltimore area. He and his wife love the area, mainly, because of the lack of density. He

understands why people would want to build homes here but there are many concerns that arise out

of crime with large developments. In Eagle Harbor there is a lot of crime occurring in the

apartments. There are beautiful homes right beside the apartments and a lot of crime bleeds out into

them. The infrastructure of Smithfield and the surrounding area cannot support 1,200 homes. The

initial application was for 250 homes and now the developer is asking for 1,200 homes. He stated

that this bait and switch should be insulting to the Planning Commission. Roads, more businesses,

and traffic lights will be a reality of the development, and if you increase the number of traffic

lights, it will take you longer to get through Town. He asked the Planning Commission to consider

that, if the development is approved, it will forever change the makeup of the area. He asked the

Planning Commissioners to consider the volume of traffic that will inundate Main St. Mr. Cashman

stated that if the development is approved, he will move out of the area. He is for progress but not

without infrastructure in place. He had questions about how Nike Park Road would be widened at

the bridge and the future of the new pedestrian trail bridge. Rescue also has bridges. He explained

that he could hear traffic on Battery Park Road and Nike Park Road as he left for work early in the

morning. It was substantial. He could not imagine what it would be like when the COVID

restrictions are lifted and people go back to work instead of working from home. He asked the

Planning Commission to be responsible when making decisions about the development in regards to

property values and secure communities.


5

Jeffrey Scheiman resides at 11273 Magnolia Place in Gatling Pointe. He agreed with all of

the other speakers regarding the proposed Mallory Scott Farm development. He explained that he

has had to sit at the Battery Park Road and Nike Park Road traffic light for three traffic signals

before he could make the turn. He is not opposed to development but would like it to be reasonable.

He stated that 400 homes might be reasonable; but 1,200 is unreasonable. There was a meeting in

January that was held outside with approximately forty people from Gatling Pointe who are opposed

to the proposed development and all have similar concerns. When he purchased his first home in

Newport News, there were a dozen stoplights between his home and his work. By the time he left,

there were over two dozen stoplights. He stated that more stoplights would be needed if the

proposed development were approved. He indicated that he understood the necessity of growth, but

thought that this was too much growth all at once.

There were no other public comments.

Planning Commission Comments:

Chairman Pack explained to the public that the Planning Commission met with

Napolitano Homes last Thursday in a pre-application meeting. The developer shared some of the

revisions to the proposed development. The plans have not been submitted but Chairman Pack

wanted to make the public aware that the Mallory Scott Farm development will be coming back

to the Planning Commission as early as April or possibly May. It is not expected to reappear on

the agenda in March. He advised everyone to look for the posted agenda at that time. The

developer listened to comments and made changes. New plans will be presented in April or May.

No decisions have been made one way or the other on the development at this point.

Entrance Corridor Overlay (ECO) Design Review Application – 1607-1613 & 1619-1623

Wilson Road, c/o Herb Stelter, applicant:

The Community Development & Planning Director reported that the applicant is seeking

approval to install a six foot (6’) tall white vinyl fence along the side boundary lines of all seven

(7) properties in question. As they are “end” units, 1607, 1613 & 1623 Wilson Rd will only be

getting a new fence on their interior boundary lines. The existing non-conforming sections of

fencing and other accessory buildings and structures located behind the properties in question

that encroach into the common element (Lot 14, Wilson Rd, TPIN 21A-45-14) are to remain

undisturbed by this project. Since the townhomes are within 500 feet of South Church Street, and

the proposed development activity is not a small-scale single-family detached residential

development activity, the application had to come before the Planning Commission for ECO

Design Review. Town staff recommended approval as submitted.

The applicant was not present to speak on his application.

Mrs. Hillegass made a motion to approve the application as submitted since it was pretty

straightforward. Mr. Swecker seconded the motion. Chairman Pack called for the vote since

there were no other questions regarding the application.

On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mrs. Hillegass voted aye, Mr. Swecker

voted aye, Mr. Torrey voted aye, Dr. Pope voted aye, Mr. Raynard Gibbs voted aye, Vice




6

Discussion Item – Invitation to Comment – 19514 Casper Circle, c/o Tower Engineering

Professionals, Inc. Attn: Ryan Malek:

Mr. Settle reported that on Thursday, January 28th, 2021, Town staff received a letter

from Ryan Malek, of Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. The property is outside of the Town

of Smithfield limits. The letter concerns the proposed increase in height of the existing cellular

base station tower at 19514 Casper Circle (TPIN 32-01-102) from 148 feet to 168 feet.

Specifically, the letter requests comments from the Planning Commission (pursuant to the

applicable federal laws, rules, and regulations noted in the letter) in response to the proposed

project with the following questions in mind:

(1) Do any historic properties exist within the vicinity of the proposed project?

(2) If so, does the proposed project cause an adverse effect to such properties?

The tower, which is located well outside of the Town’s corporate limits, is visible from

positions within the Town. However, the nearest cultural and/or historic resource within the

Town limits, the circa. 1848 Edwards house at 13453 Benn’s Church Blvd (TPIN 32-01-096A1),

does not appear to be adversely impacted by the proposed project. Town staff have enclosed a

photograph in the packet of the existing Tower taken from a position located behind the Tractor

Supply Company at 13500 Benn’s Church Blvd. (TPIN 32-01-005A), which is located one-

quarter (1/4) of a mile closer to the tower than the Edwards house. It is the opinion of Town

staff that a twenty-foot (20’) extension in the tower’s height will not adversely impact the

cultural and/or historic significance of the Edwards house or any other cultural and/or historic

resource in the Town. Town staff encourages the Planning Commission to discuss the potential

adverse impacts, if any, of the proposed project on any of the Town’s cultural and/or historic

resources. All comments generated on the proposed project will be conveyed to Mr. Malek in

writing.

Mrs. Hillegass asked if the applicant had received comments from St. Luke’s Church.

He asked if the church is aware of the request.

Mr. Settle stated that the Town of Smithfield is not aware if the applicant had received

any comments from the church. Mr. Settle stated that he imagined the project would have a much

greater impact on that area’s resources than any within Smithfield.

Dr. Pope stated that he could not imagine that twenty additional feet would make much

difference on a tower that tall.

Mrs. Hillegass agreed with Dr. Pope.

Vice Chairman Bryan agreed but felt that there should be consideration for those

historic buildings.

Chairman Pack asked if the Isle of Wight County Planning Commission would review

the application.

Mr. Settle stated that he believes that portion of the county is within a beautification

district so the Isle of Wight County Planning Commission should have received the letter as well.

For clarification, Mr. Settle asked if he could send Mr. Malek a copy of the discussion

item stating that the Planning Commission reached a general consensus consistent with staff’s

findings in the staff report for the height adjustment of the tower.

Chairman Pack stated that would be fine. The Planning Commissioners agreed.


7

Approval of the Tuesday, January 12th, 2021 Meeting Minutes.

The Town Attorney recommended the minutes be approved as submitted.

Mrs. Hillegass made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Swecker seconded the

motion. Chairman Pack called for the vote.

On call for the vote, seven members were present. Mrs. Hillegass voted aye, Mr.

Swecker voted aye, Mr. Torrey voted aye, Dr. Pope voted aye, Mr. Raynard Gibbs voted aye,

Vice Chairman Bryan voted aye, and Chairman Pack abstained. There was one abstention. The

motion passed.

The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.

___________________________ __________________________

Mr. Randy Pack - Chairman Mr. John Settle – Community Development & Planning Director

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING DEPARTMENT 310 …

Documents

Transcript of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING DEPARTMENT 310 …