Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chesapeake Bay Exception topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portsmouth planning panel denies Chesapeake Bay exception for Lake Jean pool
Summary
The Planning Commission voted to deny a Chesapeake Bay exception requested by homeowners seeking to place a private pool inside a 100-foot resource protection buffer near Lake Jean, citing lack of exception criteria and concerns about precedent; staff had recommended denial.
The Portsmouth Planning Commission voted to deny a Chesapeake Bay exception request from Mr. and Mrs. Stone to construct a swimming pool within the 100-foot resource protection buffer near Lake Jean.
Staff principal planner Valerie Malzone recommended denial, saying staff could not support development "within the 100 foot resource protection area that does not meet all of the exception criteria outlined in Portsmouth city code section 9.1-12 c." Malzone told commissioners staff had found three existing in-ground pools on nearby parcels in aerial imagery that predate the city's earliest aerials (2003) but found no zoning or building permits for those pools from 2000 to the present.
The applicant told the commission he had provided additional aerial imagery showing pools constructed after the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and argued his proposal "stays fully out of the protected seaward area" and is within the inland buffer where the statute permits consideration of exceptions. He also said he had proposed mitigation that exceeded the typical expectations for a variance.
Commissioners questioned whether approving the application would create a precedent that could oblige the city to grant similar exceptions and whether legal challenges could follow. One commissioner noted the potential for subsequent owners to pursue the same relief and asked city attorney Jeff Miller about the legal risk; Miller said each application must be considered on its own facts but acknowledged the concern.
After discussion the commission took an electronic vote on a motion to deny; the clerk recorded the result as "3 2 1 to deny." The motion carried and the exception request was denied.
The commission’s action concludes this permit request at the planning-commission level; the decision reflected staff’s statutory review under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation framework and commissioners’ concerns about precedent and the lack of permitting records for nearby pools.
