Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Permit Tabled topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wetlands board tables Whitley shoreline protection plan amid access, mitigation gaps
Summary
The Westmoreland County Wetlands Board tabled a request from the Whitleys to extend a revetment and build protective spurs after public commenters raised access and boundary concerns and the board said mitigation drawings and documentation were incomplete.
The Westmoreland County Wetlands Board on Nov. 1 tabled an application from property owners seeking an extension of an existing armor-stone revetment and construction of short stone spurs to reduce wave energy adjacent to the Whitleys’ residence.
Staff read a 2023 advisory letter from Lyle Vernel, associate director for advisory services, noting the proposed spur and revetment could fill shoreline and wetland areas and recommending footprint reductions or relocation upland where possible. Roger McKinley, representing the Whitleys, said northeasters and overwash have repeatedly threatened the home and asked the board to allow immediate armor-stone on the north side and a staged south-side build so the family will not have to return for emergency repair after storms.
The board focused on two technical gaps: (1) mitigation and fee calculations for both vegetated and non‑vegetated wetlands and (2) accurate, revised plan drawings. Several board members emphasized that mitigation obligations apply when wetlands are impacted and asked the applicant to submit a revised plan showing proposed mitigation and calculations to staff (Miss Kelly) before the board reconsiders the permit.
Public commenters raised access and property-boundary concerns that the board said are outside its wetlands-jurisdiction. James Dow, who identified himself as the owner of 25 Hazel Drive, urged the board to consider neighborhood beach access and said stormwater runoff down Pecolia Drive—not Potomac wave action—was the major local concern. Richard Haines questioned property-line claims and said recorded surveys show conflicting lines; the applicant replied that the Whitleys hold fee-simple title to the strip where a no‑trespassing sign was posted.
Because litigation and boundary disputes remain unresolved and revised mitigation drawings were not provided at the hearing, the board voted to table the application for one month so the applicant can supply complete mitigation plans and any required permit paperwork. Miss Kelly confirmed the applicant must submit materials to staff and the board will consider the revised packet at the next meeting. The board also reminded applicants of the 10‑day appeal period that applies once a permit is issued.
