Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mitigation And Shoreline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Creekview Lane bulkhead replacement after condition to restore original alignment or secure mitigation credits
Summary
The board approved a three‑year permit for a replacement bulkhead, riprap sills and beach nourishment at 389 Creek View Lane provided the applicant either moves a 34‑ft section back to the original alignment or returns with evidence of mitigation credits from the Virginia aquatic mitigation instrument/fund.
The Westmoreland County Wetlands Board granted a conditional three‑year permit for shoreline work at 389 Creek View Lane after the applicant agreed to either realign a 34‑ft section to the original footprint or secure mitigation credits under the new state compensation policy.
Staff described the project — replacement of roughly 130 feet of timber bulkhead, two riprap sills, 35 cubic yards of beach nourishment and planting of about 650 square feet of vegetated wetlands — and noted that 68 square feet of non‑vegetated wetland impacts were proposed. The staff report cited VIMS best‑management guidance favoring nonstructural living shorelines where feasible.
Craig Palopinski of Bayshore Design, the project's agent, described the proposed replacement in kind for a center washed‑out section and a new 22‑ft bulkhead tied into adjacent properties. He said adjacent owners had been notified and that the Corps of Engineers had approved the federal permit stage.
Board members and staff discussed a recent change to the county’s mitigation‑compensation policy. Staff explained that where an alignment extends channelward of the original bulkhead (in this case by about 2 feet in one section), that outward step can be treated as a loss that must be compensated by purchasing credits from a mitigation bank or the state aquatic resource fund (referred to in the meeting as VARTIF/Virginia Aquatic Resource/Fund). Staff said on‑site in‑place replacement generally avoids that additional mitigation obligation because the original impact occurred when the initial bulkhead was installed.
Faced with an outward step in one 34‑ft section, the agent agreed to revise plans to put that portion back in the original alignment if feasible, or to pursue mitigation credits and return with evidence. The board moved to approve case 1492 for three years with the proviso that the 34‑ft section be moved back to its original position; if the applicant cannot achieve that, the applicant must return with mitigation documentation. The motion passed and the chair reminded the applicant to wait 10 days before starting work to preserve appeal rights.
Why it matters: The discussion illustrates how recent changes to mitigation‑compensation procedures affect local shoreline permitting — projects that extend channelward now frequently trigger credit purchases rather than local in‑lieu fees, affecting costs and timelines for property owners.
The project is approved subject to the condition on alignment or mitigation and the 10‑day appeal period.
