Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Accomack BZA upholds county finding that Tall Pines renovation is a substantial floodplain improvement
Loading...
Summary
The Accomack County Board of Zoning Appeals affirmed the zoning administrator nd required that the house at 24070 Tall Pines Drive be brought into compliance with the county—lood-hazard overlay after staff concluded renovations exceeded the 50% substantial-improvement threshold.
The Accomack County Board of Zoning Appeals on April 1 affirmed a county determination that extensive renovations at 24070 Tall Pines Drive constitute a "substantial improvement" under the county—lood-hazard overlay, requiring the entire structure to be brought into compliance with local floodplain rules and the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.
The action reverses the property owner ppeal and leaves in place the zoning administrator's finding that documented work and subsequent valuations pushed the cost or value of improvements above the ordinance's 50% threshold. Deputy County Administrator and zoning administrator Lee Pambut told the board the appeal followed a notice of violation and multiple requests to file permits and documentation, and he urged consistent enforcement.
"I request that you uphold my determination," Pambut said, noting the county had engaged the assessor and county attorney in its review. Floodplain administrator Tom Brokimer told the board staff found unpermitted conversions (including a garage to living space), incomplete permit applications and an elevation certificate that did not meet the county's 8-foot freeboard requirement. Brokimer said reassessments and an assessor review showed an increase in improvement value that exceeded the county's substantial-improvement threshold.
The property's assessor, Brent Hurdle, described the reassessment process and confirmed staff observed construction while conducting routine inspections. Hurdle said the assessor's office relies on market information and MLS data where appropriate to set values used in county evaluations.
Attorney Joseph Sherman, representing the property owner, argued the evidence presented by the county included post-hoc estimates and asserted that two sworn assessor valuations in the record showed the improvement to be below the 50% threshold. "The only evidence this board can consider are the first two fair-market-value assessments sworn to by the assessor," Sherman said, urging the board to reverse the zoning administrator's determination.
County Attorney Jan Proctor replied that state law presumes the zoning administrator's decision is correct and that the burden of proof rests with the applicant. Proctor said the county had obtained a certified appraisal and professional analyses that supported staff's determination. "What you have heard from Mr. Sherman today does not rebut the presumption of correctness," Proctor told the board.
Following questions from board members about permits, valuation methodology and the elevation certificate, a member moved to affirm the zoning administrator's finding that the modifications increased building value by 50% or more and that the whole structure must be brought into conformance with the floodplain ordinance and the USBC. The board voted in favor.
The decision means the owner must pursue the remedial steps necessary to meet the flood-hazard overlay and state building-code requirements; staff may require a full permit application, documentation of costs, and specified retrofits. The board did not adopt a variance to the flood-hazard requirement at this hearing; counsel for the property signaled such a variance request could be filed separately.
The BZA recessed following the vote and will include related notices and next procedural steps in the county record.
