Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Addressing Nonconforming Lot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends special exception for Fourth Street lot; neighbors raise address and delivery concerns
Summary
The Planning Commission recommended approval, 7-0, of Special Exception SE2025-0003 for a two-story house at 60470 Fourth Street. Nearby apartment owners raised concerns about confusing parcel addressing; planning staff said the assessor and GIS office corrected the address to 604 in the city system.
The Newport News Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Special Exception SE2025-0003, permitting construction of a two-story single-family detached dwelling on a nonconforming lot cited as 60470 Fourth Street.
City planner Saul Garcia presented the Blue Chip Realty Corporation application and said the parcel has been zoned R-4 (single-family dwelling) since the 1997 comprehensive rezoning. Garcia described the proposal as a two-story house with a covered front porch, brick-first-floor facade and an attached one-car garage recessed from the front of the structure; staff recommended approval with 10 conditions, including submission of elevations and exterior materials to the Department of Planning for director review prior to building permit issuance.
During the public hearing two speakers raised concerns about address confusion between the proposed new dwelling parcel and an adjacent apartment property. Irvin Goldstein, who said he represents the adjacent Newmarket Apartments owner, described ongoing problems serving eviction paperwork and deliveries because the apartment building and related parcels had been referenced inconsistently as 602 and 604 Fourth Street in prior records. Goldstein said the confusion has created operational problems for the apartment owner and could affect emergency response.
Property manager and owner Bailey Wang appeared and said mail, deliveries and service attempts had been disrupted by the inconsistent addressing.
Saul Garcia responded that planning staff had worked with the assessor's office and GIS to resolve the discrepancy. "We readdressed the one that was 602 to 604," Garcia said, adding that the assessor's parcel ID did not change but that the physical address in the city GIS now shows 604. Garcia told the commission that police, fire and the sheriff's department had been notified and were "thankful of that," and that staff considered the addressing discrepancy fixed in city records, though those speaking from the apartment ownership said they wished to confirm the change in their records.
After hearing public comments the commission closed the public hearing and voted 7-0 to recommend approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Garcia said the BZA will consider the case in March 2025.
