Reluctant NK supervisors pass controversial stormwater ordinance

After nine months of bouncing between the county’s board of supervisors and planning commission, New Kent Supervisors approved a controversial stormwater ordinance.

A special joint public hearing between the two parties on June 23 addressed the ordinance and the numerous concerns. After several revisions, it was presented once again to the planning commission.

Several key factors played a major role into concerns launched by citizens at previous meetings. Among them included the authority of a designated “administrator” to enter a person’s property without permission to check for violations. Other concerns include the cost for land disturbance for land area greater than one acre, which entity maintains control of the program, and the amount of time it takes to receive permits to build. Those concerns reared again during the public hearing portion of the meeting.

“I don’t know why the county staff tries to keep this in play,” said Douglas Shuler. “It’s already affected other jurisdictions.”

Shuler read two articles referencing recent legislation in the city of Arlington. There, new water regulation laws have prevented organizations from hosting charitable events, such as charity car washes.

“These documents have many mis-citations,” said James Poole, who has opposed the ordinance since its introduction. “There will nearly be a four-month delay once the paperwork is submitted for the administrator to review.”

Poole also pointed out that if the administrator does not make a ruling within 60-days, the application is automatically approved.

“There are 24-pages full of errors and sections that don’t exist,” said John Phelps, identifying the 81-page document’s lack of information. “There are still references of land features that don’t exist or apply to New Kent.

“I don’t see how paid staff continues to present poor legislation that is not needed for New Kent,” added Sharon Phelps.

County attorney Michele Gowdy commented that the land features mentioned in the ordinance were mandatory due to state requirements, but commissioners didn’t agree with the decisions to be made.

“This is state code verbatim,” said Richard Kontny. “I have some questions about the code and there are some things I agree with and some I don’t.”

“We don’t have a lot of power in this decision,” added commissioner Michael Lane. “We are choosing the less of the two evils.”

Commissioners passed the ordinance 8-0-1 with a favorable recommendation to county supervisors. And while county supervisors questioned the ordinance, it was District 4 representative Ron Stiers who lashed out at the mandate.

“It’s just another tax to the people of the county,” he said. “I don’t know why this has to be done by July 1.

“It’s not going to stop. It’s the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) umbrella of power that’s been given to them,” he concluded.

County administrator Rodney Hathaway advised supervisors of the setbacks of not adopting the ordinance.

“The state will shut us down,” he said, referencing the ability to build. “If this ordinance does not pass, there will be no economic development in this county.

“If we adopt it, we maintain control of it and it can be handled by us in-house,” he added.

District 5 supervisor Ray Davis was more concerned about past behavior conducted by the state.

“What worries me is if we keep this in-house, we get to keep 72 percent of the fee to help manage the program, but how long will that last?” he said. “We’ve been down this road before with the 911 and ENS (Emergency Notification System).

“They provided funds for us for one year and then they dropped it on the localities,” concluded Davis.

Supervisors pondered further, asking what will happen if they did not approve it. Environmental planning manager Matt Veneable said that no other permits could be issued and that the stormwater permit would take precedence for all building due to land disturbance.

After several more minutes, Davis took the lead in making the motion.

“I hate to do this, but I don’t think we have much of a choice,” he said.

The motion to adopt and maintain the program within the county passed 4-0, with District 3 representative James Burrell absent. A second motion for adopting an amendment to ordinances of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act to comply with the stormwater ordinance also passed 4-0.