Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shore Protection And Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves after‑the‑fact Wormley Creek bulkhead with penalties for agent and contractor
Summary
VMRC approved an after‑the‑fact permit for a 100‑foot vinyl bulkhead at Wormley Creek contingent on payment of civil charges: $3,000 assessed to the agent, $9,000 to the contractor, plus triple permit fees and royalties due from the property owner; the contractor was not present at the hearing.
The Marine Resources Commission on Jan. 28 granted after‑the‑fact authorization for a 100‑foot vinyl bulkhead installed at 1124 Wormley Creek Road in York County, but only after imposing civil penalties and a triple permit fee. Staff presented a compliance investigation that found the new bulkhead had been installed approximately two feet channelward of the previously authorized alignment without prior VMRC authorization.
Staff recommended permitting the structure “as built” provided civil charges were paid: a $3,000 civil charge assessed to the agent (Living Shorelines; Randy Carnell), a $9,000 civil charge assessed to the contractor (identified in the file as Matt McClellan/Tidewater Marine Construction), and a triple permit fee of $900 plus a triple royalty of $600 to be paid by the permittee (property owner Leonard Clark). Staff said those charges reflect the agency’s civil‑charge matrix and are intended to address noncompliance and discourage similar unauthorized work.
The agent’s attorney, Mike Ware, and the agent, Randy Carnell, were present and told the commission that unforeseen subsurface debris from the failing original bulkhead led the contractor to move the new sheet‑pile alignment seaward when crews encountered the obstruction. Carnell testified that when crews began work they changed methods in the field because the existing materials and erosion made driving in the originally planned alignment impracticable; he later returned and tied the new wall into the remaining original structure.
Deputy/Enforcement staff said the contractor had been notified and had signed a notice to comply; the contractor did not appear at the hearing. Staff recommended immediate removal as an option if civil charges were not paid; commissioners and the agent’s attorney agreed the better course was to authorize the permit upon payment and to pursue the contractor separately for enforcement.
Associate Member Hand moved to accept staff’s recommendation (after‑the‑fact permit contingent on payment of civil charges and fees). The motion, seconded by Associate Member Erskine, passed 7–1 with Associate Member Headley opposing. The commission record directs staff to issue the after‑the‑fact permit once payments are received and to pursue collection or enforcement actions against the contractor if necessary.
Staff said the installation included dead‑man tiebacks and subsequent tie‑in work to secure the new wall; the file documents follow‑up inspections and additional work performed to ensure the structure meets stability expectations. The commission’s action resolves the immediate authorization question for the property owner while documenting civil enforcement against the firms involved in the unauthorized work.
