Lancaster County Wetlands Board tables Salt Terrace shoreline plan after VIMS warns of dune impacts

The Lancaster County Wetlands Board on Monday voted to table a proposed shoreline stabilization plan from Salt Terrace Solutions after staff read a technical assessment from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) that raised concerns about potential impacts to the beach and dune system.

Olivia, staff to the board, introduced the application from AJ Counta Makala and Levana Ready, care of Salt Terrace Solutions LLC, which asked permission for 360 feet of rip-wrap revetment, two 100-foot stone breakwaters, a 50-foot spur, 9,000 square feet of sand nourishment and 900 feet of wetland plantings along an eroded Chesapeake Bay shoreline (VMRC #2026852; NAO 2026838). Agent Joey Scott told the board the site has shown long-term retreat in places and described the proposal as a combined approach to preserve the backshore while retaining beach features.

Staff then read VIMS’ technical assessment into the record. The VIMS review said the site has historically experienced medium to high erosion since 1937 but has been relatively stable for about 20 years, possibly because neighboring shoreline hardening limited retreat. VIMS recommended considering offshore breakwaters alone because a revetment “will separate the dune from the beach and thus eliminate most of the intrinsic sand exchange between the beach and dune,” risking dune destabilization. The assessment suggested adjustments to breakwater gap widths, placement and crest height (4–5 feet above mean high water) and urged caution about placing a revetment while sand nourishment effectiveness is unproven.

Joey Scott responded that some of the separation VIMS flagged had since filled with sand and that the team’s intent was to use breakwaters first and add a backshore revetment only if breakers and nourishment proved unsuccessful. He also noted cost constraints: "breakwaters are much more expensive than a backshore revetment," and said that financing would influence the applicant’s choice.

Board members and consultants discussed trade-offs—shoreline protection for the property versus impacts to the public beach and dune system—and whether the offshore elements fall under VMRC jurisdiction rather than the wetlands board. With recent revisions and the new VIMS analysis, staff recommended and the applicant requested more time to refine the design. The board opened the public hearing; no members of the public spoke.

A board member moved to table the item “until we get all of the elements of the final design.” The motion was seconded and carried by voice vote; staff will return the item after the applicant submits a complete final design and the board has had time to consider the VIMS comments.

What happens next: Staff will review any revised plans and VIMS-related adjustments and place the item on the next meeting agenda for the board to reconsider.