Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants after-the-fact Chesapeake Bay exception for Baker property after debate over permits and erosion
Summary
After staff recommended denial, supervisors approved an after-the-fact Chesapeake Bay preservation exception for the Bakers' retaining wall, patio and shed, conditioned on mitigation; staff cited the 2009 exception limit and found the work was done without permits, while the homeowners said erosion threatened the house.
The Isle of Wight Board of Supervisors approved Exception 24-3, granting an after-the-fact Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBPA) exception to property owners Jeffrey and Christina Baker for a retaining wall, patio and shed constructed within the 50-foot RPA buffer. Shawnee Biesink, the county's environmental planner, told the board staff recommended denial, citing the 2009 exception conditions prohibiting new encroachments and concluding the current structures were installed without the required permits.
Biesink said staff observed about 625 square feet of new disturbance in the RPA, noted concerns about additional erosion where the wall does not extend, and characterized the encroachments as a self-created hardship given prior denial letters and earlier conditions. "The retaining wall, shed and patio exceed the minimum necessary to afford relief for this property," Biesink said, and staff recommended removal or mitigation and recommended denial of the exception.
Jeff Baker, the homeowner, told the board the work resulted from ongoing severe erosion behind his house and a desire to protect the dwelling. He said he contracted engineers, paid for water-quality and wetlands assessments, implemented drainage improvements and exceeded the county's mitigation recommendations with additional plantings. "We have already gone forward with the mitigation ... we've actually done 24 shrubs instead of 6," Baker said, adding that part of the timeline complication was his being stationed overseas.
Board members weighed the homeowner's hardship and the fact the work proceeded despite prior staff warnings. Several supervisors expressed discomfort with the post-denial construction but also noted the property's unusual erosion problems and the homeowner's mitigation steps. The board voted to approve the exception with the Planning Commission's recommended mitigation and conditions; recorded votes were Ealy ' yes; Garner ' yes; Acree ' yes; Rountree ' yes; Chairman Jefferson ' yes. Conditions require mitigation plantings and the ability to relocate the shed if the reserve drain field is needed.
