Smithfield council denies Bellamy rezoning after heated debate over proximity to hog farm and traffic

The Town of Smithfield council voted to deny a proposed conditional rezoning for the Bellamy residential project, a roughly 1,076‑unit plan by Rock Tower Partners intended for property off Wilsons Mills Road.

David Bergmark of McAdams, speaking for the applicant, told the council the team substantially revised the proposal after a prior denial: "We've reduced that townhome count by 30%" and increased larger single‑family lot sizes and setbacks, he said, and the developer pledged a phased build that would push lots nearest the Youngblood hog farm to the last phases and donate about 7 acres for possible public use. (David Bergmark: SEG 2135–2142, SEG 2243–2250.)

But speakers from the Youngblood family and several residents pressed the council on farm operations and safety. Andy Pettish, attorney for Youngblood Farms, said he represents the family and their farm interests and urged the council to consider long‑running agricultural uses and statutory protections for farms (Andy Pettish: SEG 2956–2961). Sam Slater, representing developer interests, reviewed state nuisance law and noted protections for existing farms but acknowledged community concern (Sam Slater: SEG 2749–2756). A resident captured the tone of many neighbors: "I'm tired of smelling Hog Lagoon, Smithfield," one speaker said during public comment. (Resident: SEG 3924.)

Council members cited three recurring issues in deliberations: proximity to active hog operations (including spray fields and lagoons), traffic and emergency‑service impacts on Wilsons Mills Road, and consistency with the town’s comprehensive plan. Planning staff had described numerous negotiated concessions — a larger perimeter buffer in one area, added guest parking for townhomes, and a 20‑foot type‑B buffer along a shared boundary — but several council members and residents said those measures did not sufficiently address the perceived health, nuisance and safety risks.

The council voted to deny the conditional rezoning request (motion and voice vote recorded at the meeting). The chair announced the motion carried. (Council decision: SEG 4743–4861.)

Councilmembers and the applicant noted next steps could include revising the proposal again or pursuing development options that do not require the same conditional‑zoning process; staff also pointed out that a by‑right subdivision is an alternative that would be subject to different review and conditions.

The denial ends the current conditional‑zoning application; the developer or property owner may choose to revise the plan and return or pursue other lawful development pathways.