Smithfield council denies Country Club Townhomes special use permit after neighbors and experts warn of flooding, lake impacts

The Town of Smithfield council on (date not specified) voted to reject a special use permit for Country Club Townhomes (SUP‑24‑03), a proposed 60‑unit townhome development at the northwest corner of South Brightleaf Boulevard and Country Club Road. The decision followed hours of testimony from town staff, the developer and multiple expert and citizen witnesses.

Planning director Stephen Winsman told council the proposal—by Crantock Land LLC—would place 60 townhomes on roughly 8.026 acres in a B‑3 district and includes a stormwater pond and a pump station at the site’s southern edge next to Holt Lake. Winsman said the applicant submitted two plan versions: an original public‑street scheme that did not meet a 60‑foot right‑of‑way requirement and an alternate plan using private streets to achieve the same built layout while meeting dimensional standards in an easement.

Opposing testimony focused on three areas: impacts to adjacent homeowners, the appraisal evidence of lost value, and gaps in environmental and engineering documentation. Adjoining homeowner Marcia Eason Armstrong Keeney told council the development would “remove the buffer” behind her property and leave her “no privacy,” and she raised concerns about trespass, littering and increased runoff into a shallow ditch behind her lot.

State‑certified appraiser James Lucas testified the market shows a measurable negative reaction to homes that face townhouse communities and said his analysis produced an estimated 5% reduction in value for lots adjoining a townhome development. Environmental consultant Jim Spangler told council the application lacked several critical engineering items—topographic contours, verified wetland delineation and a FEMA letter of map revision—and warned that grading, fill and a stormwater outfall near Holt Lake could change flood elevations and send concentrated runoff and pollutants to the lake.

“Because the application materials do not include a verified delineation of wetlands, a flood study or final stormwater design, it is not possible for the town council to make a finding of fact that the proposed development will not adversely affect adjoining properties or waters,” Spangler testified.

Developer witnesses and counsel argued the plan could comply with the UDO and that final engineering and permitting would be completed at the construction‑plan stage. Civil engineer Brian Leonard said the project was designed so lots would drain to streets and thence to a stormwater pond, and he described standard pump‑station design and odor‑control and generator backups intended to limit odor risk.

Councilors considered the eight required findings under the UDO for special use permits individually. After debate, members concluded several findings were not satisfied—citing unresolved floodplain/fill questions, incomplete stormwater and wetlands documentation, the appraiser’s estimate of property‑value impacts and expert testimony about potential odor and water‑quality effects—and moved to deny the permit. The motion to deny carried.

Next steps: The developer may revise the application and return with the missing engineering and permitting documentation if it chooses to pursue the project again; the council’s vote tonight was based solely on the testimony and material presented at the hearing.

Sources: Planning presentation and staff report, testimony from Mr. Brian Leonard (BRL Engineering), Ms. Marcia Keeney (adjacent homeowner), Mr. Bob Denning (adjacent homeowner), Mr. James Lucas (appraiser) and Mr. Jim Spangler (environmental consultant).