The Planning Commission on July 17 discussed a request to investigate allowing open‑sided shelters — commonly described in the meeting as "gazebos" or "open‑sided shelters" — on piers and docks, and asked staff to seek clarification from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) about the agency's interpretation of “open‑sided.”

Staff reported that VMRC guidance allows a boathouse that meets VMRC parameters (referred to in the meeting as up to 700 square feet for a boathouse) and allows open‑sided roofs or gazebo structures that do not exceed 400 square feet without triggering a permit, but that larger structures or objections by "adjacent property owners" can require a conditional‑use permit and a VMRC public hearing.

“Per Jeff Madden, VMRC liaison, open side means no doors, no screens, no walls,” a staff member summarized from an email received by planning staff. The commission asked staff to confirm whether that interpretation is codified in VMRC regulations and to clarify why VMRC appears to prohibit screening or enclosures.

Commissioners and attendees raised technical questions the commission said need clarification before drafting any local ordinance: whether a 400‑square‑foot gazebo can be placed on a 6‑foot pier without additional platform area; whether an owner may have both a boathouse and an open‑sided shelter on the same dock; how the 400‑square‑foot aggregate limit is calculated (whether appendages such as L‑ or T‑shaped platforms count toward the total); and whether the definition of “adjacent property owner” includes owners across a creek when property deeds extend to the water.

A resident who spoke during the meeting said some waterfront lots are deeded to the waterline and that an owner across a creek may share a property line “in the center of the creek,” which — if VMRC’s interpretation stands — could affect who may object as an adjacent owner.

Staff said the Board of Supervisors has already voted to approve the Planning Commission’s request to investigate allowing open‑sided gazebos, and the commission agreed to gather clarifications from VMRC and from neighboring counties that have allowed similar structures before returning with a recommended ordinance language.

No ordinance text was adopted at the July 17 meeting; commissioners described the session as an exploratory discussion and directed staff to request formal clarification from VMRC and to obtain examples/photos from neighboring counties that permit such structures.