BZA denies two proposed accessory-dwelling projects on Phillips Drive amid safety and notice concerns

The Accomack County Board of Zoning Appeals on March 14 denied two special-use permit requests that would have allowed two dwellings on roughly half-acre lots on Phillips Drive, an agricultural zone where the county's comprehensive plan calls for one dwelling per five acres.

Staff told the board that the applicants sought special-use permits to allow a primary dwelling and an accessory dwelling on each lot and that variances would also be required for lot size and for separation distances. Staff recommended approval of the special-use permit component while saying the applicants had not met the threshold for variance relief; staff also listed nine conditions that would apply if the board approved the permits.

Neighbors who spoke during public comment said the proposed development would increase traffic and safety risks on a narrow, unshouldered stretch of Phillips Drive near a blind curve and that the county had not adequately notified adjacent property owners. "There's a lot of traffic on that road," said Donald Yon, a nearby resident, adding that semi-trucks have damaged roadside ditches. Sharon Yon, another neighbor, cited accident counts and invoked Code 15.2-2204 in arguing that the notice process left residents "in the dark." Several commenters warned approval would set a precedent for more dense development in the agricultural district.

The applicant responded to concerns by saying he had met with VDOT and county staff about the driveway and that he would require year-long leases rather than short-term rentals. "I will even give send a copy... saying that these are only for 1 year or more leasing," he told the board, and he said two of the four houses would be pet friendly and that he had discussed teacher housing needs with local school officials.

Board members emphasized location, precedent and the absence of supporters at the hearing. One member moved to deny the special-use permit; another seconded, and the board approved the motion by voice vote. Staff noted that, despite the denial of the special-use permits as proposed, each lot remains eligible for a single dwelling consistent with zoning and subject to Health Department approvals.

The denial resolves two cases the board heard at the meeting; staff said the identical variance requests remain unapproved and that, because both components would be required for the project as proposed, those variances are moot with the permit denials. The board did not provide a roll-call vote in the record; the outcome was announced after members responded "aye."