Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lancaster County wetlands board approves four shoreline-stabilization projects, tables one at agent request
Summary
At a Lancaster County Wetlands Board meeting, members approved four permit applications for riprap, revetment and sand nourishment projects along several waterways and tabled one application after an agent requested revisions. Board actions were by motion, second and voice/hand vote; the transcript does not record roll-call tallies.
At a meeting of the Lancaster County Wetlands Board, members approved four shoreline-stabilization permit applications for properties on Carrick Creek, the Corrotoman River (referred to in the transcript as "Keratoga/Corrotoman River"), the Rappahannock River and Dead and Bones Cove, and tabled an earlier application after the agent requested revisions.
The board tabled the first item after the applicant's agent asked for more time. "The agent has requested that we table this application pending a revision," board staff member Olivia said; a board member moved to table, another seconded, and the board approved the motion.
Most of the items that followed were presented to the board by Joseph Scott of Solterra Solutions, the agent listed on the applications. Scott described existing revetments at several sites and said the proposals generally replace or extend failed bulkheads and revetments using riprap or stone revetment, sometimes combined with sand nourishment and vegetative plantings. "There's an existing revetment at this particular site, and this project is going to enlarge the footprint of that," Scott said about the Carrick Creek application, adding that much of the work would be done by barge and that no tree removal was planned beyond overhanging material already in the water.
Votes at a glance
- Edgar Siedel and Sarah Monroe (in care of Solterra Solutions). Request: remove, repair and install 204 linear feet of riprap and a 15-foot riprap revetment return with vegetative plantings along Carrick Creek (tax map 27-4-13; VMRC number 25-1478). Motion to approve was made, seconded and carried by voice/hand vote; roll-call tallies not recorded in the transcript.
- Demetrius (Demetrius/Dimitris variant in transcript) Maduvas (in care of Solterra Solutions). Request: install 80 linear feet of riprap/revetment along the Corrotoman River shoreline (tax map 26-106; VMRC number 25-1323). Motion to approve was made, seconded and carried by voice/hand vote; roll-call tallies not recorded.
- Hannah Jacobs (agent listed as Joseph Scott) — described in transcript as "Hannah Jacobs and Kiera Salterra" — Request: install 38 linear feet of stone sill (class 1 and 2), 13 cubic yards of sand nourishment and 60 square feet of wetland vegetation plantings on the Rappahannock River shoreline (tax map 33-473; VMRC number 25-1255). Motion to approve was made, seconded and carried by voice/hand vote; roll-call tallies not recorded.
- James T. and Martha D. Turner (in care of Solterra Solutions). Request: remove a failing bulkhead and install 473 linear feet of riprap, multiple core log sills, 2,900 square feet of sand nourishment and 2,050 square feet of wetland vegetation plantings along Dead and Bones Cove (tax map 33-130B; VMRC number 25-1287). Motion to approve was made, seconded and carried by voice/hand vote; roll-call tallies not recorded.
The transcript records brief project descriptions and site details for each application, including access arrangements and anticipated environmental impacts. For example, Scott said for one site that some saltbush growing through the existing revetment would be removed during work and could be replanted landward of the proposed return. For another, Scott said access to the work area would be via a neighboring property and that the neighboring owner had signed an APO (access permission) form.
Board and agency comments
VMRC (the Virginia Marine Resources Commission) staff informed the board in several instances that VMRC was processing the subaqueous-permit portion of individual applications and that VMRC had no further comment on those proposals. A county staff member said BayAct (Bay Act) compliance had been satisfied for at least one large project where a failing creosote bulkhead is being replaced.
Procedures and vote recording
Most approvals were handled with a motion, a second and an "all in favor" response; the meeting transcript does not record individual yes/no vote tallies or named roll-call votes. Where the transcript lacked a named mover or seconder, the article reports only that the motion was made, seconded and approved by board voice/hand vote.
Why it matters
Permits for riprap, revetment and sand nourishment change the shoreline footprint and can affect tidal wetlands, vegetation and public trust resources; the board's approvals authorize property owners to proceed with the described work under the terms of the permits and any coordinating state or federal approvals.
Next steps
One application was explicitly tabled at the agent's request pending a revision; the agent indicated they would return to a future meeting. The approved projects will proceed to the appropriate permitting steps (VMRC and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as applicable). The transcript does not record permit issuance dates or construction start dates.
