James City County boards unanimously approve five shoreline and RPA exception requests with mitigation and surety conditions

The James City County Wetlands Board and Chesapeake Bay Board on Dec. 10, 2025, voted unanimously to approve five separate shoreline and RPA (resource protection area) permit requests, including a 65‑foot wooden bulkhead at 3096 North Riverside Drive and four Chesapeake Bay exception requests for residential additions and accessory structures. Each approval included conditions such as required federal, state and local permits, mitigation planting plans, surety payments and recorded affidavits.

Staff presented the first case, WJPA‑24‑0028, for 3096 North Riverside Drive in the Yarmouth Creek watershed. Emily Grojean, watershed planner, said the applicant (Andrew Gurley of CLS Marine LLC, on behalf of Jackie Stefan) proposes a 65‑linear‑foot wooden bulkhead in the existing footprint to replace a failed concrete bulkhead. Grojean said staff reviewed the application against the recent wetlands mitigation policy and listed required submittals, tree protection and a surety. "Staff has reviewed the above application and recommends denial of the application as presented because a living shoreline project will work in the scenario and is the preferred method of shoreline management by the Commonwealth of Virginia," Grojean said. Despite that recommendation, public speaker Karen Hall, who identified herself as a nearby resident, urged approval, saying the previously proposed living‑shoreline option had lost neighbor participation and "we're just proposing... the bulkhead in the same exact footprint, removing the concrete bulkhead and replacing it with the wood bulkhead." After discussion about protecting large cypress trees and required permits, the board moved to approve the bulkhead with conditions, including a $3,000 surety to guarantee replanting in the disturbed RPA; the motion passed 5–0.

The Chesapeake Bay Board then considered four exception requests in successive hearings. Amanda Frazier and Emily Grojean presented staff findings and recommended conditions for each case, including mitigation planting plans sized to RPA impacts and surety amounts. Highlights:

- CBPA25‑0126, 7667 Cypress Drive (addition): The lot is 0.84 acres with 56% in the RPA; staff reported 40 square feet of landward 50‑foot RPA impact and required mitigation equal to half a planting unit (six shrubs). Staff recommended approval with a $500 surety; the board approved 5–0.

- CBPA25‑0135, 8826 Mount Zion Road (detached garage): The 2.918‑acre lot is nearly all in RPA; staff reported about 3,157 sq ft of landward 100‑foot RPA impacts and mitigation equal to eight planting units (8 canopy, 16 understory, 24 shrubs). Staff recommended approval with a $6,000 surety and affidavit recording; the board approved 5–0.

- CBPA25‑0138, 1 Tay River (deck, patio, fire pit): Staff reported 881 sq ft of landward 50‑foot RPA impacts requiring two planting units; staff recommended approval with a $2,000 surety. The applicant’s representative described the improvements as largely within an already‑maintained yard and said disturbance would be minimal; the board approved 5–0.

- CBPA25‑0133, 108 North Knob Hill (attached deck, walkway, fire pit, patio, retaining wall): Staff described larger RPA impacts and required mitigation totaling 9.5 planting units; the applicant submitted mitigation equal to eight units and proposed paying into the county’s Chesapeake Bay Mitigation Fund for the remaining required units (staff referenced a $2,000 payment into the mitigation fund). Staff recommended approval with a $6,000 surety and fund payment prior to building‑permit issuance; the board approved 5–0.

Representatives for applicants (identified in the record as Chase Grog/Grag/Grogg of LandTech/Atlantic Resources and Sean Lehi of Crossroad Custom Builders for separate projects) described design choices intended to limit disturbance and meet mitigation requirements. In several cases staff noted projects were platted prior to relevant ordinance adoption and therefore subject to grandfathering or specific review criteria.

Each approval carried explicit next steps: applicants must obtain required federal, state and local permits (for example, an erosion‑and‑sediment‑control plan and land‑disturbance permits where thresholds are met), post the listed surety in a form acceptable to the James City County Attorney’s Office, and record affidavits at the Williamsburg‑James City County courthouse prior to release of surety. Several exception approvals specified an expiration date (construction must begin by Dec. 10, 2026) and procedures for requesting extensions.

The meeting concluded with a brief scheduling note about a Jan. 21 work session and formal adjournment.

Ending: All five cases were approved by voice/roll‑call votes of 5–0; staff conditions and surety/mitigation requirements are the formal obligations to proceed. If applicants do not meet the listed conditions (permits, surety, affidavits), approvals may lapse per the timelines noted in staff recommendations.