[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6177776,"mediaKeyId","5332648-b2be4c6bac59266c7f3d0050976a9ad4","parentId",5332648,"title","Commission approves several protested statutorily authorized private piers, gazebos and boathouses after hearing","audioSeconds",1374,"startMs",6861000,"endMs",8235000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5332648-b2be4c6bac59266c7f3d0050976a9ad4&start=6861&end=8235","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5332648-b2be4c6bac59266c7f3d0050976a9ad4/thumbnail_6861000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6177776/Virginia/Commission-approves-several-protested-statutorily-authorized-private-piers-gazebos-and-boathouses-after-hearing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177776-6f6eab72902fcae3cd99ba36bb0aa079/orig.mp4?Expires=1770482713&Signature=EfsqrupG1OPa6VXDfLpNooslEBZ9COEjxDnTb1r1-UJNcOrxrbzVG5swwz7g6mVdGp6WfGgs6kUDgQsjNegFoK86KJJ6fEvt~8L1ORGzInJIHTj9bWoW5gADCpktcDXLy~82-7J2-26InmNch6GLCYGdyI~gh28DXAviZMuaNJ~pJH4dbVu1xFjQEX980PpNBe2NY-qQ630lSM~sEFD5WnD8Of9FR5hbM7s0hhmHa0~r7a3XpCmFYMTdHy2or9xeG-7lM1zEZd9fFn2T2~I4J6pUVY~ZxOqFxDx0C6V8uluDhdRiJszLNyVIOwaAz-zkAjKgpPVqedGbaBS6HYYSlg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Virginia Marine Resources","date","2025-06-24T00:00:00Z","article","The Marine Resources Commission heard three protested permit applications for statutorily authorized private piers with accessory roofs and boathouses and approved staff recommendations after brief public comment.

Item 7: Brett Noon — an 11×11 open‑sided gazebo proposed on a statutorily authorized private pier on Mill Creek, Mathews County, was protested by an adjacent owner. Staff reported the pier meets statutory authorization (Code of Virginia §28.2‑1203(A)(5)); the protestants had recently obtained their own gazebo authorization. Commissioner Erskine moved to accept staff recommendation; Commissioner Edwards seconded. The motion carried (recorded vote in transcript: 6–0).

Item 8: Ronald Collins — a 14×18 open‑sided gazebo on a statutorily authorized private pier on Winder Creek, Mathews County. The protestant appeared and provided photographs; the applicant’s agent said the rooftop shade was requested for medical reasons and the pier had been shifted and reduced to minimize visual impact. After public comment, the commission accepted staff recommendation and approved the request (vote recorded as 6–0).

Item 9: Harrell Family Living Trust — request to construct an 18×16 gazebo and a 37×15 open sided boathouse at a statutorily authorized pier on the York River in James City County. The request was protested by upstream and downstream neighbors who expressed concerns about privacy, security and the apparent scale of the project; staff noted nearby boathouses and recent similar approvals upriver. Commissioners voted to approve the staff recommendation on the project after deliberation.

Across the three items staff cited Code of Virginia Section 28.2‑1203(A)(5) (statutory authorization for private piers and accessory structures, with size limits for open boathouses and gazebos) and explained that, had the applications not been protested, the structures would have been statutorily authorized and approved at the staff level. Because adjacent owners filed protests the cases required commission consideration. Commissioners balanced views from adjacent property owners and the applicants’ agents, and in each case approved staff recommendations after public testimony.

Why it matters: the hearings illustrate how local shoreline accessory structures are handled under statutory authorization and how protests by adjacent owners move otherwise ministerial authorizations to a commission decision. The commission emphasized that disputes over riparian boundaries are civil matters for circuit courts and that VMRC’s jurisdiction is limited to submerged‑lands authorization and statute compliance.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025-06-24 Virginia Marine Resources Commission Meeting (Part 1)","oneSentenceSummary","The Marine Resources Commission approved three protested, statutorily authorized private‑pier accessory structures after hearing staff recommendations and public comments: two gazebos and one boathouse/gazebo combination.","taxTitle","Marine Resources Commission, Executive Agencies, Executive, Virginia","taxId",36425,"location","Virginia","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6177778,"Commission debates oyster‑ground application off Willoughby Beach as Corps and city raise beach‑renourishment conflicts",201,9579000,9780000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5332648-b2be4c6bac59266c7f3d0050976a9ad4&start=9579&end=9780","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5332648-b2be4c6bac59266c7f3d0050976a9ad4/thumbnail_9579000.jpg","/articles/6177778/Virginia/Commission-debates-oysterground-application-off-Willoughby-Beach-as-Corps-and-city-raise-beachrenourishment-conflicts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177778-7aa786f4751b863fe025057a9a1b92a3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770482713&Signature=ng5qxJCM6sWhV7QyXM6VVBiiiaml0Ph9GvNgabDlgZij1d7CbXmwN9OAm7ouDBG1wT8Od4sIgW1sW06eflO0174ZxwWEUCHXvid7sC5FP2xg~yPB2WnlSrA1LIjoLFiEOKdtWszfjscS6UYRgpnDbBNqmp2OCcmsOUR-1Muc~NTcTJbxZudxaTxJvmnV1CpRvgRwTysROQKuskw5LbuooSgs~5qgyzWssfiLjrCb4USJ1rZzV6wUmyq-sreT2c7mviQ3Zem4ifqGYXkFFE9GqjobzrbOYo-udpuWpcIe~n60vYU3I0u5KNOnZ-Pel7lcWAGI6QeqCUc2o9BJCqsb8Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An application to plant roughly 250 acres of oysters offshore from Willoughby Beach in the City of Norfolk prompted a contested public hearing June 24 and significant pushback from the city and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

VMRC staff presented application 2021016 (applicant Mark Johnson), a proposed on‑bottom planting ground roughly 430 feet off the Willoughby shoreline. Staff reported written protests from the City of Norfolk and the U.S. Army Corps, and identified no existing submerged aquatic vegetation or historical leases inside the proposed footprint. The City and Corps said the lease area overlaps planned pump‑out locations for Corps beach‑renourishment projects and would interfere with an authorized federal shore‑protection project.

Robert Pruse, chief of technical support for the Corps’ Norfolk District, said contractors will anchor dredges and run submerged pump‑out lines from the dredge to the beach as they construct the nourishment template, and those lines and pump‑out anchor locations could cross any lease the commission approves. “This entire area could be open to the dredge operation,” the Corps witness said, adding that any Corps permission to alter or impair the federal project would require a separate evaluation (a Corps 4‑0‑8 review) and could include hold‑harmless terms.

Margaret Kelly, assistant city attorney for Norfolk, told commissioners the city has performed frequent, costly beach renourishment and monitoring since the federal project was authorized and that sand for renourishment is expensive and limited. She warned that placing a large oyster lease in an area that may require nearshore sand placement would create practical and legal conflicts, and that the city should not be put in a position to litigate over damages to the municipal project.

Applicant Mark Johnson told the commission he intended on‑bottom planting and would remove or forgo harvest if required; he said he had paid for a survey and expected to proceed. The Corps, the city and several nearby residents described ongoing beach‑stabilization activity and said shells, if moved shoreward, could increase cleanup costs and affect public beach use.

Commission deliberations were prolonged and several motions failed. A motion to deny the application was put forward and then failed (vote in transcript recorded as two in favor, five opposed). Commissioners discussed alternatives — reducing the acreage, shifting the footprint westward, or tabling for further coordination — but each path raised procedural and technical questions: resizing the footprint inside the already‑advertised survey would require a new survey, another public comment window and additional applicant costs; shifting pump‑out locations is contractor‑dependent; and Corps staff said the proposed pump‑out and dredge operations were not fixed coordinates and could vary by contractor and project year.

At the time the meeting record ends, commissioners had debated a proposal to reduce the requested footprint; staff advised that any reduction inside the advertised footprint would require a resurvey and new public notice. The applicant expressed concerns about additional survey costs but indicated willingness to negotiate. The commission did not adopt a final, uncontested modified footprint during the session and the matter remained unresolved at the meeting’s close.

Why it matters: the case highlights a recurring conflict between shoreline protection (authorized federal and municipal renourishment projects) and proposed shellfish aquaculture on state bottoms. Both use public trust‑owned water and bottom and are high‑stake, infrastructure‑sensitive activities; the Corps and city argued the public‑safety and public‑property interests in beach protection outweigh a new lease in the disputed area. The commission must weigh competing public interests, legal authorities and practical constructability when considering oyster assignments in active nourishment corridors.","An application for about 250 acres of oyster planting ground off Willoughby Beach drew protests from the City of Norfolk and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which said planned beach‑renourishment pump‑out locations could conflict with lease sites. Commissioners debated multiple motions but did not reach a straightforward approval.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6177784,"Virginia Marine Resources Commission denies petition to require terrapin bycatch reduction devices; asks staff to study recreational pots",207,607000,814000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5332648-b2be4c6bac59266c7f3d0050976a9ad4&start=607&end=814","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5332648-b2be4c6bac59266c7f3d0050976a9ad4/thumbnail_607000.jpg","/articles/6177784/Virginia/Virginia-Marine-Resources-Commission-denies-petition-to-require-terrapin-bycatch-reduction-devices-asks-staff-to-study-recreational-pots","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177784-91372366842717e4ad32c88b1dbe6968/orig.mp4?Expires=1770482713&Signature=CQ94tLfxqSSxf1y-PgFnIZORLkstFFGVQa-PL0W-RPocqmz9HErHfN3v8FbfHhfpefAORoFaAiF4olBbvBilF1HrUcTVf28C6l9jnPobcTo-w0Hij9mfj3HoWiP~yyZu8McNDbBk63hLf1rCZTCufbaj66rBWXMgGb7OXFqZBjNgkUfLPFKnOqaJbMyzX9Tsx6E-EJohD~OKCn~0Dl1~l~LKX1mbwi054LitY5Lj9bEInxNW~GmlIUOCxTFDfz2zHJTy7gcFV-XVZSx71BWAawC4jmrcTtuEHPPzLi0tdu2mi6XE5VTPGhvknO9br0sKMnDDo97R2bFKSb9zN4Fz2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Marine Resources Commission on June 24 denied a petition asking the commission to require bycatch reduction devices, or BRDs, on licensed commercial and recreational blue crab pots within 150 yards of the mean low water shoreline.

Petitioners — the Center for Biological Diversity, the Virginia Herpetological Society and William M. Rosenberg — asked the commission to adopt or amend regulations to require rectangular BRDs no larger than 4.5 by 12 centimeters on each funnel of a crab pot in nearshore waters, and proposed a three‑year retrofit grace period. The petition sought the requirement in waters “less than a 150 yards from shore at the mean low watermark, including man made lagoons, creeks, coves, rivers, tributaries, shallow bays, inlets, and nearshore harbors,” and included draft regulatory language and citations to portions of the Code of Virginia cited in the petition materials.

The commission invited a 10‑minute petitioner presentation followed by public comment and a five‑minute rebuttal. William Rosenberg, who identified himself as “a biologist at Ohio University,” summarized research showing steep terrapin vulnerability and presented experimental results he said showed a 4.5×12 cm BRD reduced terrapin captures by about 80% without reducing legal crab catch. “The BRD is a very simple, cost effective mechanism to reduce terrapin bycatch,” Rosenberg said.

Speakers from Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) and William & Mary described terrapin life history, low population growth rates and strong site fidelity. Randy Chambers, director of the environmental lab at William & Mary, told the commission he had used commercial‑style crab pots to study terrapins in Virginia and said BRDs produced “a tremendous decrease in terrapin bycatch.” Staff noted VIMS recommended initiating rulemaking and suggested tailoring any requirement to recreational pots would give more “bang for your buck.”

Commercial watermen and recreational crabbers strongly opposed a mandatory requirement for commercial pots. Speakers representing the Virginia Watermen’s Association and several individual commercial watermen warned of higher gear costs, decreased catch of larger (“money”) crabs, pressure‑washing and maintenance problems, and enforcement difficulty if the rule covered unlicensed two‑pot recreational users. Several speakers showed examples of plastic and wire BRD products and disputed some study conclusions based on their on‑water experience.

After public comment and petitioner rebuttal, Associate Commissioner (Acting Member) Preston moved to deny the petition in its entirety; Commissioner Headley seconded. The commission voted to deny the petition 7–0. Commissioner White then made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hand, directing staff to revisit the recreational pot fisheries (both the two‑pot unlicensed use and the five‑pot licensed recreational category) to assess whether a recreational‑only BRD requirement is feasible; that motion carried 7–0.

The commission’s written decision on the petition will be posted to the Virginia Register of Regulations and Virginia Regulatory Town Hall as required for petition rulemaking. Staff said a denial of the petition as written does not prevent the commission from asking staff to explore elements raised in the petition or in public comment.

Why it matters: the petition addressed a recurring conservation conflict between an at‑risk species (diamondback terrapin) and a long‑standing nearshore crab fishery. The commission denied the broad, coastwide petition for now but instructed staff to return with a focused review of the recreational sector, leaving the door open to targeted regulatory change or education and incentive programs.","The Marine Resources Commission on June 24 denied a petition to require bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) on all licensed commercial and recreational crab pots within 150 yards of shore, but directed staff to study requiring BRDs for recreational pot fisheries.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission approves several protested statutorily authorized private piers, gazebos and boathouses after hearing

Commission debates oyster‑ground application off Willoughby Beach as Corps and city raise beach‑renourishment conflicts

Virginia Marine Resources Commission denies petition to require terrapin bycatch reduction devices; asks staff to study recreational pots