Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental‑exception topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves exception to allow in‑ground pool inside 100‑foot Chesapeake Bay buffer on split vote
Summary
By a 5‑2 vote the commission granted CEX2024003, allowing installation of a small in‑ground pool and decking within the 100‑foot Resource Protection Area (RPA) on a 0.6‑acre Lakeview Court lot after the applicant proffered mitigation plantings; staff had recommended denial.
The Suffolk City Planning Commission voted 5-2 to grant a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area exception (CEX2024003) to allow an in‑ground pool and associated concrete decking to encroach into the 100‑foot Resource Protection Area (RPA) on property at 100 Lakeview Court.
Staff planner Gonzalo Borges recommended denial, saying pools are accessory structures and "are not permitted in the RPA" and that the application appeared to be self‑imposed and not the minimum necessary to afford relief. Borges said the subject lot is roughly 0.6 acres and that the proposed pool and deck would add approximately 943 square feet of impervious surface within the RPA; the total land disturbance for construction, including access and erosion controls, was listed as about 1,768 square feet. Borges also noted that the rear of the property borders tidal wetlands contiguous with Lake Mead, a drinking‑water reservoir owned by the City of Portsmouth, which establishes the 100‑foot buffer.
Applicant Steven Harmon said the lot was platted before current CBPA rules and that the design minimizes disturbance and includes mitigation: “We are committed to the protecting the environmental integrity of the area and are prepared to implement all required best management practices, including additional landscaping and runoff controls to offset the proposed encroachment,” he told the commission. The applicant submitted a buffer mitigation plan proposing five units of vegetation mitigation (the riparian manual requires one mitigation unit per 400 sq ft of disturbance).
Why it matters: The staff report argued the exception does not meet the ordinance criteria because accessory pools are not permitted in RPAs and the request would increase impervious cover; commissioners who voted in favor cited the lot’s pre‑existing configuration and mitigation measures when granting the exception by a 5‑2 vote. The record shows commissioners attached conditions to the approval; staff’s denial recommendation and the split vote indicate the decision was contested.
The commission’s action confers Planning Commission approval of the exception; the item record indicates conditions and mitigation measures will be required as part of implementation.
