The Marine Resources Commission heard three protested permit applications for statutorily authorized private piers with accessory roofs and boathouses and approved staff recommendations after brief public comment.

Item 7: Brett Noon — an 11×11 open‑sided gazebo proposed on a statutorily authorized private pier on Mill Creek, Mathews County, was protested by an adjacent owner. Staff reported the pier meets statutory authorization (Code of Virginia §28.2‑1203(A)(5)); the protestants had recently obtained their own gazebo authorization. Commissioner Erskine moved to accept staff recommendation; Commissioner Edwards seconded. The motion carried (recorded vote in transcript: 6–0).

Item 8: Ronald Collins — a 14×18 open‑sided gazebo on a statutorily authorized private pier on Winder Creek, Mathews County. The protestant appeared and provided photographs; the applicant’s agent said the rooftop shade was requested for medical reasons and the pier had been shifted and reduced to minimize visual impact. After public comment, the commission accepted staff recommendation and approved the request (vote recorded as 6–0).

Item 9: Harrell Family Living Trust — request to construct an 18×16 gazebo and a 37×15 open sided boathouse at a statutorily authorized pier on the York River in James City County. The request was protested by upstream and downstream neighbors who expressed concerns about privacy, security and the apparent scale of the project; staff noted nearby boathouses and recent similar approvals upriver. Commissioners voted to approve the staff recommendation on the project after deliberation.

Across the three items staff cited Code of Virginia Section 28.2‑1203(A)(5) (statutory authorization for private piers and accessory structures, with size limits for open boathouses and gazebos) and explained that, had the applications not been protested, the structures would have been statutorily authorized and approved at the staff level. Because adjacent owners filed protests the cases required commission consideration. Commissioners balanced views from adjacent property owners and the applicants’ agents, and in each case approved staff recommendations after public testimony.

Why it matters: the hearings illustrate how local shoreline accessory structures are handled under statutory authorization and how protests by adjacent owners move otherwise ministerial authorizations to a commission decision. The commission emphasized that disputes over riparian boundaries are civil matters for circuit courts and that VMRC’s jurisdiction is limited to submerged‑lands authorization and statute compliance.