Skip to content
County Voice

Property request · wetlands permit

Deborah G. Matthews Revocable Trust: remove a 38’ portion of a failed bulkhead -like structure, install a 6’ return wall into remaining timber bulkhead and install 75 linear feet of riprap revetment (Hull Creek)

  1. Wetlands Board hearing (county’s record, Mar 10)Mar 10

  2. Wetlands Board decides (county’s record, Mar 10)Approved, unanimously · Mar 10

A step the records show opens the record itself.

About the Wetlands Board

In plain words

The Deborah G. Matthews Revocable Trust has applied for shoreline work at 195 Gull Lane, along Hull Creek, under Application No. 26-0255.1 The plan is to remove a 38' portion of a failed bulkhead -like structure, add a 6' return wall, and place 75 linear feet of riprap revetment, a rock erosion barrier.1 At the Wetlands Board meeting on March 10, 2026, Joseph Scott, agent for the owner, described the project.2 He said the owner tried planting to develop a living shoreline, but it didn't work, and noted the bank was 30 feet tall.2 Albert Fisher made a motion to approve the application as submitted for three years, George Rew seconded, and the Board unanimously approved.2

Summarized from the county’s records, September 26.

Where each sentence comes from
  1. “Application No. 26-0255 Deborah G. Matthews Revocable Trust” … “along the shoreline of Hull Creek and 195 Gull Lane” … “to remove a 38’ portion of a failed bulkhead -like structure, install a 6’ return wall into remaining timber bulkhead and install 75 linear feet of riprap revetment”The matter as the records title it
  2. “Joseph Scott, agent for the owner, described the project” … “the owner has done some planting trying to develop a living shoreline, but it didn’t work. He also noted that the bank was 30 feet tall” … “Albert Fisher made a motion to approve the application as submitted for three years. George Rew seconded the motion and the Board unanimously approved.”Mar 10, 2026 · Wetlands Board · In the minutes

Written automatically from the county’s records. Each sentence has to quote the record it comes from, word for word, or it’s left out. The records have the final say.

The official wording

Application No. 26-0255 Deborah G. Matthews Revocable Trust – to remove a 38’ portion of a failed bulkhead -like structure, install a 6’ return wall into remaining timber bulkhead and install 75 linear feet of riprap revetment along the shoreline of Hull Creek and 195 Gull Lane.

Words the law defines

  • Wetlands board
    “‘Wetlands board’ or ‘board’ means a board created pursuant to § 28.2-1303.”

    Code of Virginia § 28.2-1300, Chapter 13. Wetlands

What’s happened

  1. Tue10Mar

    Wetlands Board · a vote

    ApprovedThe Board’s vote

    After review of the project and there being no objections, Albert Fisher made a motion to approve the application as submitted for three years. George Rew seconded the motion and the Board unanimously approved.

    Moved by Fisher, seconded by Rew

    Minutes, Mar 10Open it in the meeting →

Meeting by meeting, newest first, in the records’ own words. Each vote names the minutes it’s written in.

The records

Gathered from Northumberland County’s agendas, minutes and notices. Checked October 26.

Something wrong here?

If you know something on this page is wrong, say so. A person at County Voice reads each one. One that checks out is corrected here, with the date. The county’s and the state’s own records aren’t changed.

Never shown on the site, and not used for anything else.

Disagreeing with a decision isn’t a correction. To be heard on one, see what’s coming up.

How a wetlands permit is decided

Work in tidal wetlands and along the shoreline, such as riprap, bulkheads and sills, needs a permit. The county's Wetlands Board decides these applications after an advertised public hearing.

Applications are also filed with the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, which assigns the application number used to follow a request.

The law: Va. Code § 28.2-1302 (Adoption of wetlands zoning ordinance; terms of ordinance). This describes the general process, not this decision.