Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Chesapeake Bay Buffer Exception topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission approves exception to Chesapeake Bay buffer for expanded deck at 1878 N. Cherry Grove Road, 6–1

3857647 · June 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a public hearing and debate over shoreland buffer protections, the commission approved an exception to allow replacement and expansion of a residential deck within the Chesapeake Bay resource protection area buffer, subject to mitigation and permitting.

The Suffolk City Planning Commission voted 6–1 to grant Exception Request CEX20250007 for the replacement and expansion of a deck at 1878 North Cherry Grove Road in the Cherry Grove Estates subdivision.

Staff planner Isabel Reynolds recommended denial, saying the proposal “does not satisfy the criteria outlined in section 31‑4‑15 of the Unified Development Ordinance.” The applicant’s agent, Brian Lang, described efforts to minimize impacts and noted the house and much of the lot lie within the 100‑foot resource protection area (RPA) buffer; he provided a buffer mitigation plan proposing three units of vegetation to offset land disturbance.

The property is zoned Rural Estate (RE) and is about 1.61 acres. The homeowner proposes to replace a 410‑square‑foot deck with a new 1,088‑square‑foot elevated deck; staff said the new work would more than double the existing deck and therefore “does not meet the minimum necessary to afford relief.” The agent estimated the increased pollutant load from the added impervious area would be about 0.01 pounds of phosphorus per year.

Commission discussion noted the home was established about 1980, prior to the Chesapeake Bay preservation requirements; commissioners also discussed alternatives and mitigation. The motion to approve included the mitigation plan and the requirement that appropriate permits be obtained prior to construction; the vote passed 6–1. Staff told the applicant to obtain required permits and proceed with the mitigation measures if construction begins.