New Kent supervisors fire back at proposed ordinance

When John McCutchen of Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) pushed the fact that the new proposed stormwater ordinance mandated by the state needs to be adopted by local jurisdictions such as New Kent, it seemed similar to a car salesman selling a vehicle that everybody must have. New Kent supervisors weren’t buying it. In fact, they countered the proposal.

Supervisors unanimously voted at their Nov. 13 meeting to send the stormwater ordinance back to New Kent’s planning commission. The move comes as a result of information provided by county attorney Michele Gowdy earlier in the meeting.

(Supervisors approved to adopt the 2014 Legislative agenda Wednesday morning with a statement requesting DEQ to delay implementing the ordinance by at least one year.)

Gowdy informed supervisors that an 84-page document received by the county earlier in the day consisted of several changes that affected the previously reviewed ordinance. She also provided information that more changes are expected in December.

In the original stormwater ordinance sent to supervisors, changes included terminology of land that didn’t apply to the New Kent area, a designated “administrator” who could enter ones property without consent, and other concerns including severability and an appeals process. Those were major concerns noted by county citizens.

With new information in tow, supervisors quickly lashed out at the ordinance– and the DEQ representative.

“If DEQ can’t get their stuff straight, how can we get our stuff straight?” questioned District 5 representative and board chairman Ray Davis.

“I want to know how many times DEQ has been on sites to see what builders are doing and what DEQ should be implementing,” charged District 1 supervisor Thomas Evelyn. “The state wants to drop this on us.

“Taxes aren’t being raised at the state level (for support), but now you’re asking local jurisdictions to raise taxes?” Evelyn said, obviously frustrated with the new demands. “The word ‘assumption’ in this ordinance is big and who is going to make decisions if something is done correctly will be based off of ‘assumption’.”

While McCutchen argued that his department transferred to DEQ to manage the stormwater program in 2005, he said there are only 20-25 inspectors in his department and an estimated 10,000 open permits, one of the main reasons DEQ is trying to hand down the program from the state level to the county level.

According to numbers provided by county administrator Rodney Hathaway, the program could cost the county $100,000 a year based off of new hires, with a possibility of escalating costs in the future.

While McCutchen argued DEQ wanted to provide guidance to localities on the issue and believes localities will be in unison by the July 2014 compliance date, District 4 representative Ron Stiers provided blunt comments to the state official.

“Do you realize people don’t want this?” said Stiers, pointing to the document. “This is just another way for more government control.

“If I have a problem with erosion from my neighbor’s property causing a problem on my property, I should be able to go to him and solve the problem, not have the government do it,” continued the supervisor to a thunderous applause of opponents of the ordinance.

“This document basically says somebody will be inspecting my property every 14 days for the rest of our lives. As [county resident] John Phelps said at the [Oct. 21] planning commission meeting, the erosion that needs to be controlled is the erosion of our property rights.”

District 3 James Burrell agreed with Stiers’ comments, but also added he understood where DEQ was coming from.

“I remember when EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) implemented laws to help vehicles regulate emissions and that’s what they are trying to do here,” he said. “I’d rather have this a little overbearing instead of forcing it. What we need to do is try to balance this.”

Davis returned to questioning McCutchen, asking how many members of the Piedmont District have adopted the ordinance to date and what would happen if supervisors refused to do so. After hearing a response of “zero” and that the department is expecting everybody to comply, Davis proposed a hypothetical theory to McCutchen.

“What if a dozen rural counties said they don’t want to do it, what will happen?” questioned the chairman.

“I don’t know. I can tell you we’re not looking at it that way. We are making it an effort to get it done,” responded the representative.

Evelyn put the final closing point on supervisors’ comments on the issue.

“DEQ wants us (the county) to pass it when they haven’t,” he said. “Give us another year so you all can work out the kinks and you can study it. New Kent is a rural county and this will affect us.”

The wrath about the ordinance wasn’t done for McCutchen. Despite supervisors saying they have no intentions to take action on the ordinance due to proposed changes, ordinance opponents spoke out to reinforce what supervisors had told the DEQ representative.

“This ordinance was written for the city,” said county resident Doug Dill. “It reduces the rights of the residents.”

“Everything they are asking to be done in the ordinance is another burden to the county,” added resident Chester Alvis. “This will not allow businesses to come into the county.”

“The first rule of government is to protect citizens, not to run their life,” said John Phelps, who has not been shy about his stance on the proposal. “Don’t approve this. Protect the taxpayer and the citizen.”

With the proposed changes, New Kent’s Planning Commission is not expected to address the issue until their December 16 regular meeting. Even then, a recommendation may not return to supervisors until January 2014 due to new state clarifications due the following day (Dec. 17).