New stormwater ordinance raises concerns in New Kent

After more than four months off, New Kent’s Planning Commission convened to handle normal affairs at its monthly meeting. However, it is a new storm water ordinance that has some citizens and commissioners at odds.

The new storm water ordinance management proposed would designate localities to enforce regulations and require an “administrator” to enforce them. While the counties will maintain the responsibility that regulations are met, the state will still oversee all activities.

During public comments, citizens voiced concerns over the new proposal, saying the designated administrator would have too much power, including the ability to enter one’s property without the consent of the owner or a warrant.

“The code is not law, its regulation,” said James Poole, who feared that the administrator would have too much power.

“I am concerned about the environmental aspect and degradation of the land,” added John Phelps.

County attorney Michele Gowdy’s overview of the regulations summarized the intention of the permit. Under the proposal, localities are to establish an administrator as an enforcement officer. Among proposed changes in the county code include definitions, a section on severability, and a section on hearings and appeals, which plays a vital role in local enforcement. If an appeal is requested, a hearing is conducted at the local level (by a supervisor or the board of supervisors) to determine if the storm water ordinance has been violated. If the applicant/violator of the ordinance is not successful during that hearing, they may appeal to New Kent’s Circuit Court.

Commissioners were not hesitant with questions and concerns of the proposed changes.

“Who would be the administrator?” questioned Roger Gregory IV.

“It would be me,” responded environmental planner Matt Venable who was in attendance. “There will be a lot of testing, training, and changes in testing.”

Despite having an idea of who the administrator may be, commissioners still had other areas of concern, especially after Gowdy informed them that no funding would be from the state, but the power of an adjustable fee would be in place.

“I get the feeling we don’t have much of a choice,” commented Michael Lane. “I see it from the citizen’s point of view and I understand how they feel.”

According to Venable, the plan was introduced to provide a permit to manage storm water equally and to use the lay of the land. However, he also added why it brings a lot of difficulty to the county.

“New Kent is a transitional county,” Venable said, pointing to how the western part consists of hills while the eastern portion is more flatlands. “This ordinance is going to try and balance this.”

Commissioner Richard Kontny spoke up, questioning a lot of confusing aspects of the proposal.

“This proposal says we would have to get a permit to remove debris,” Kontny interpreted through his understanding of the ordinance. “That means when the trees fell down in Woodhaven Shores during a hurricane, we would have to get a permit to remove them because it’s a land disturbing activity.”

Planning commission chair Jack Chalmers’ adamant comment focused on what he deemed as behind the scenes actions at the state level.

“This [ordinance] is being pushed down on us because the state didn’t have the manpower to enforce it,” commented the chairman.

With comments and opinions concluded, commissioners elected to dive into the matter last Monday. The permit, which was originally set to take place in July of this year, was extended to begin July 2014. Gowdy advised commissioners that a decision is needed soon as the board of supervisors needs to either approve or deny the permit before the end of the year.