Westmoreland County approves revetment and breakwater at Stratford Harbor for three years

The Westmoreland County Wetlands Board on Aug. 18 approved a three‑year permit for case 1494, a shoreline protection project at the Stratford Harbor Property Owners Association community beach that includes a 106‑foot armor‑stone revetment at the bank toe and a 60‑foot offshore breakwater with beach nourishment and wetland plantings.

Staff told the board the site is on the southern shore of the Potomac River and is a high‑energy shoreline with significant scouring. The staff report said the revetment would be about 6 feet high with a 1.5:1 slope and that the breakwater would be 18–22 feet wide with a 4‑foot apron and 4–5 feet of elevation above mean low water. The report noted the project proposes approximately 240 square feet of non‑vegetative wetland encroachment, about 80 square feet of dune or beach encroachment, 350 cubic yards of beach nourishment and roughly 2,800 square feet of wetland vegetation plantings. Staff recommended the project as consistent with VIMS best management practices for offshore breakwaters with nourishment.

Craig Palovinski of Bayshore Design, the agent for the applicant, said the proposal responds to recent severe erosion at the eastern end of the shoreline and that earlier work in 2008 stabilized much of the beach to the west. "We're proposing a 106‑foot armor stone revetment ... and a 60‑foot armor stone breakwater, adding 350 cubic yards of beach nourishment, and ... 2,800 square feet of wetlands," Palovinski told the board.

Several neighbors and association members spoke at the public hearing. Patricia Lee said the 2008 groins increased erosion on her property and that she had not been notified about the meeting: "Since the groins were put in in '08, that's when the erosion started on this man's property," she said. Letters read into the record by staff from nearby residents raised concerns that the Property Owners Association had not provided full design documents or explained funding and responsibility for construction and maintenance.

By contrast, John Mead, second vice president of the property owners association, said the association has discussed the plan with members and referenced a recent survey that, he said, indicates confidence the area is association property; he estimated options at "around $60,000" to "$80,000" for one scenario. Agent Palovinski and others also urged the board that a primary technical approach follows VIMS guidance for a living‑shoreline hybrid (breakwater plus backshore revetment and plantings).

The board questioned whether objecting correspondents are adjacent property owners and whether written concurrence exists; Palovinski said he had notified adjacent property owner William Canaday and Hollis Island owners but received no written concurrence from some properties. A representative associated with the Marine Resources Commission recommended that the applicant provide a survey to support riparian ownership claims.

A motion to approve the project as presented for a three‑year permit carried on recorded Ayes. Chair/Clerk Charlie instructed the applicant to wait 10 days before starting work to allow for the appeal period; the board also described the appeal mechanics, including a 10‑day window and the possibility of a freeholder appeal process as described by staff.

The permit approval includes the staff conditions discussed at the hearing. The board made electronic copies of the plans available to the public on request and noted that the Army Corps of Engineers is increasingly involved in joint permit applications, which may affect future permitting procedures.

Next steps: the permit is effective but subject to the 10‑day appeal period; staff said applicants should delay mobilization until that period lapses.