Controversial ordinance sent to New Kent supervisors

A controversial proposed stormwater ordinance that dismays both public opponents and commissioners themselves, is headed to New Kent’s Board of Supervisors with a favorable recommendation for adoption. And the county appears to have little choice but to adopt the matter.

The decision to forward the proposed ordinance came Monday night at New Kent’s Planning Commission meeting.

County attorney Michele Gowdy gave an overview of the ordinance first presented at the September commission meeting. Gowdy spoke about changes to the ordinance and how it was revised to comply with state regulations.

Among one of the areas of concern by commissioners and public opposition is the ability for a designated administrator to enter a person’s property without permission.

The local ordinance presented adds a condition that if the homeowner refuses, the county will go to a magistrate’s office to obtain a warrant to access the property.

Opponents of the ordinance maximized their allotted time to speak during public comment period, most saying that the complicated document was too much for even the public to understand.

“There are a lot of inconsistencies in this ordinance,” said Douglas Shuler. “Laws and ordinances are getting more complicated and this model ordinance [that the local ordinance was drafted from] will bite you in the butt.”

“The terminology is not appropriate to New Kent County,” pointed out John Phelps, who has been adamant on his opposition to the proposal.

“The erosion that needs to be controlled is the erosion of our property rights,” he added, speaking on the access of administrators to privately owned land.

James Poole, another opponent of the proposal, claimed if the ordinance is adopted, current exemptions would be scrapped under the new changes.

“This regulation was written at a national and international level, not state level,” he said. “The state is not going to enforce them, so they handed it down and want you [the county] to do it.”

Poole pointed out certain land features not designated to New Kent County, including karsts and gopher holes that apply to regions more than 1,500 miles away from the immediate area but still required to be in the ordinance.

“My concern is that this is so much more complicated for the normal citizen,” added Lauren Fisher. “You said you have to vote on it, but you say you have no choice.

“What is it going to cost the county?” she continued, pointing to cost of additional hiring, training, and transportation costs.

With the public hearing closed, Gowdy addressed attendees, saying that the ordinance has trickled down from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and is now at the local level.

“The state code says we have to do it,” said Gowdy, pointing to more than 25 changes that have to be made in accordance to the state ordinance.

“We should be better in the long run. We’re just the third tier in the process,” added county environmental code compliance inspector Matt Venable, who had said at the September meeting that more than likely he’ll be the administrator inspecting grounds.

Commissioners began to pick apart the ordinance, raising concerns and mentioning consequences that could occur if they tried to fight the changes.

“If we tried to fight this, wouldn’t it cost the county a lot of money?” questioned commissioner Michael Lane, receiving acknowledgement from Gowdy that it would.

“I agree with the public on the issue, but the battleground is at another level, not this level.

“My vote is going to support it, but only because if we don’t, it’s going to cost us money,” concluded Lane.

Richard Kontny, who cast the lone opposing vote, displayed his concern over the ordinance.

“I hate voting on things that don’t pertain to us,” he said, pointing to geographical features not inside county boundaries. “I don’t believe the model is right for New Kent.

“New Kent is a transitional county,” Kontny continued. “I wish we’d have time to iron out these issues.”

Edward Pollard acknowledged while he believes the state wants all jurisdictions to be on the same level, challenging the state on the issue would make no sense.

“This is too tough for the county to handle,” he said, pointing to costs to fight the ordinance.

With comments closed, commissioners agreed to a favorable recommendation of 8-1 with two abstentions to forward the issue to county supervisors. Supervisors could act on the ordinance at their November regular meeting.