Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater And Subdivision Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Berkeley County planning panel denies final plat for Nadin Bush Pines after homeowners cite stormwater, soil and HOA problems
Summary
Berkeley County Planning Commission denied final plat approval for Nadin Bush Pines Phase 3 after multiple homeowners testified about persistent stormwater drainage, lack of topsoil and unresponsive builder/HOA management; county staff and the county engineer said the stormwater permit and sediment pond remain open and bonded.
Get email alerts on the Stormwater And Subdivision Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Berkeley County Planning Commission on Oct. 11, 2025, denied final plat approval for Nadin Bush Pines Phase 3, a nine‑lot single‑family subdivision proposed by ILA Properties Inc., after a lengthy public hearing in which multiple residents described ongoing stormwater, soil and HOA problems in earlier phases.
The denial follows testimony from homeowners who said lawns have failed to establish because builders did not place adequate topsoil, that stormwater runoff ponds and culverts remain problematic, and that the developer has not provided HOA governance or timely responses. Frederico Kaldish, a homeowner on Lot 42, told the commission he had submitted photographs and a county stormwater report and said, “A final civilization required that the site has healthy, vigorous stands of perennial grass that uniformly covers more than 70% of the ground,” reading language from the state permit and county manuals.
Planning staff had presented the project as a request for final plat approval for Lots 46–53 and 59, saying the plat met the subdivision ordinance’s requirements contingent on receipt of surety in the amount of $60,699.60. Residents and the county engineer, Doug Smith, told the commission the development remains under an open land‑disturbance permit with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection and MS4 inspections active. Smith said the sediment pond “is still under bond” and that the area “is still under an open land disturbance permit with us and with DEP,” and therefore cannot be closed until upstream areas are stabilized.
Trevor Lloyd, representing ILA Properties, said the developer had recently contracted a property management company to run the HOA and that the DEP permit remains open. He told the commission the current request covered nine lots “that we're asking for final plat approval for tonight” that are the last portion of the drainage area for the basin. Commissioners debated whether interim fixes (riprap, erosion matting, improved roadside stabilization) could be required now for existing lots, and several commissioners noted staff and MS4 have been monitoring and that some bond reductions had already been withheld.
Commissioner Michael Bush moved to deny final plat approval, seconded by Commissioner Goff; the motion passed. The commission did not adopt a specific remediation checklist in the motion but directed staff and the county engineer to continue inspections and work with the developer on corrective measures; the county chair said the matter will return to the commission when staff and the engineer confirm remedial work has been completed to their satisfaction.
Homeowners who testified asked the commission to pause new permits and to require the developer to place at least 4 inches of topsoil, establish vegetation, and clear culverts before additional approvals. Staff reiterated that some corrective work can be done on public right‑of‑way areas now but said full stabilization of the drainage basin requires completing the remaining construction. The bonds for the ponds and stormwater facilities remain in place and will not be released until the county and DEP close the permits.
The hearing produced numerous resident exhibits, including a 2023 county stormwater inspection report, photographic comparisons from 2023 to 2025, homeowner receipts for remediation attempts, and a packet of written testimony filed with the clerk. The commission denied the plat but said the decision is not final in the sense of precluding resubmittal; staff and the county engineer will re‑inspect once the developer completes corrective work and the item can be brought back to the commission for reconsideration.

