Saturday, February 11, 2017

People of Virginia!! Tell Our Attorney General to Stop Interfering With The Swamp Draining

Attorney General of Virginia

Call A.G. Mark Herring and Demand He Stop His Lawsuit Against President Trump’s Travel Ban Executive Order.
Here is his number: (804) 786-2071

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Draining The Local Government Swamp

Gloucester, VA - Picture taken for the new Gloucester Links & News website.  Gloucestercounty-va.com

Draining The Local Government Swamp

Our new President promised that if he were elected he would drain the federal government swamp and return power to We The People. So far President Trump appears to be living up to his promise, but he cannot do it alone and our federal government is not the only place where the government swamp needs to be drained. Our Commonwealth government (I emphasize “Common”), needs some draining and so does our local government and many other local government’s throughout Virginia.

One of the biggest issues of government overreach in Gloucester County, Virginia is land use zoning. Gloucester has been driven onto the path of the local government telling land owners what they may or may not do with their property. That is not the Gloucester I and many others grew up in. Our local government and elected representatives have passed local laws and adopted policies that require land owners to comply with “their” restrictive zoning requirements. In fact, our current Board of Supervisors has passed local law prohibiting certain styles of buildings because they do not like how they look. Further appalling is the fact that one of our elected Supervisors has publicly stated during a Board of Supervisors meeting that he believes they sometimes need to tell land owners what they may or may not do with their property. In my opinion Gloucester County “is” the definition of United Nations Agenda 21 micro-zoning.

Several years ago our local government began to implement what they refer to as the “Village Plans”. These plans constrict growth within the Hayes/Gloucester Point and Courthouse areas. They want retail and other business, medium to high density housing and other such growth restricted primarily to these areas and are making a concerted effort to develop every space possible. 

Recently our Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning request so a developer can build an apartment complex next to the York River Crossing Shopping Center. This complex will contain around 120 apartment units and will share parking with the shopping center. The apartments will also share the existing entrances to the shopping center, as there are no plans to construct additional entrances. In this instance our local government made exceptions to their zoning restrictions in order to accommodate the developer even though, People spoke against the apartments at the Public Hearing and there will be traffic and other impacts that will negatively affect a significant number of us. Yet, they would not approve a small developers request for an exception to their zoning rules so he could build a single duplex apartment unit in a Courthouse area neighborhood.

About three years ago our local government approved a developers request to rezone land behind the American Legion Hall so they can build around 260 apartment units. This land is well outside of their Village Plan development area, but the rezoning request was still approved. Recently a developer requested our local government to rezone five and half acres of land so he can build five, four unit, apartment buildings; for a total of 20 apartments. This developers rezoning request was denied.

Recently a Gloucester land owner spoke publicly at a Board of Supervisor meeting about his dismay at not being able to rent out a house located along Route 17 because the house had not been occupied for two years or more. As it turns out, some years ago our local government implemented a local law that rezones residential property within the Development District to commercial property if the residence remains uninhabited for two years or more.

Our local government would like us to think they are taking steps to accommodate growth in Gloucester, when in reality they are just hand selecting what they want to see in Gloucester and continuing to follow the United Nations micro-zoning path created by their predecessors back in the 90’s. I believe the village plans and other constrictive zoning and zoning associated laws and policies should be scrapped. I believe land owners should be given their property rights back. If it does not pertain to health, safety or security, our local government should refrain from interfering in what landowners do with their land. Getting rid of micro-zoning practices will save a lot of tax dollars and will also generate additional revenue from growth.
Do you agree or disagree?

Comments about articles and submissions for publication on GVLN may be emailed to: Kennysr61@gmail.com
Let your voice be heard on any topic pertaining to our community.
We will publish many opinions the newspapers will not.

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point, Virginia

Kennysr61@gmail.com

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Where Do Your Local Tax Dollars Go?


Gloucester County, Virginia is once again entering into the annual budget building season. Last year there were folks who wanted to see a seven or more cents increase in real estate taxes. After efforts by several conservative minded Gloucester People and a lot of deliberation by the Board of Supervisors, the increase turned out to be ½ cent. Let’s review what I suggested to the Board of Supervisors during the public comment period of the meeting in which the Board voted, in a three to four split decision, to increase real estate taxes by ½ cent. I began my suggestions with: Any tax increase is unacceptable considering last year’s increase, the repeal of the boat tax and the amount of money irresponsibly spent year after year. I then made the following suggestions.

-Parks and Recreation funding should be limited to what it takes to operate and maintain our most used parks and programs and the lesser used (over half of them) should be closed. Manpower should be limited to minimum operational requirements. All parks and recreation capital projects should be frozen until financial ability and growth trigger further expansion. This will save over $250,000 annually.

-We pay over $250,000 a year to rent our libraries. The rent arrangement for the Main St. Library is an unethical back door funding mechanism for a non-profit organization (That organization is the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust) and is not a fair and transparent way to spend tax dollars. As a first step, the library at Hayes should be closed and funds normally appropriated for its operation and rent should be diverted to a library construction fund. Owning our libraries will save over $200,000 annually, after depositing $50,000 annually into a maintenance and expansion fund.

-Last year I called for the elimination of the Community Education Department. (Instead of eliminating it, more money was dumped into it and the name was changed to the Department of Community Engagement.) I also called for returning the department’s functions back to schools, social services, County administration, human resources, IT and the various non-profit organizations the department supports. I suggested moving the director to the planning department. (I now feel the position should be eliminated all together.) This will yield an annual savings of at least $350,000. (If the director position is eliminated the savings would be over $100,000 more than the $350,000 I suggested last year.)

-Animal Control should be reorganized into a reactionary department and patrolling should cease. This will make the department more citizen friendly. Staff should be limited to two officers. The Sheriff’s dept. dispatcher should receive incoming calls and dispatch the officers as needed. This will save over $100,000 annually.

-What to do with our bus garage and old Page properties is being considered. It has been rumored that selling all or part of the properties is the best option. Considering our substantial infrastructure needs and need for consolidation, any option to sell the properties does not seem to be fiscally responsible, in the best interest of managing our assets or taking care of our employees.

These properties afford us the ideal location to consolidate county and school functions. We should expand our bus garage and consolidate all school and county transportation functions under one fleet director employed by the County. We should consolidate all of our school and County public works, buildings and grounds and janitorial type functions under one director employed by the County. Utilities has money to purchase property for of a new yard and office. It should be used to begin the consolidation process by moving Utilities to the old Page property. (The County and our public school system continue to kick this can down the road. Someone wants the old Page and school bus garage properties and Gloucester taxpayers are going to end up on the short end of the stick if we allow the property to be sold. As it stands now, tens of thousands of dollars have been spent to do a study on where a consolidated facility should be located. The County and schools have limited the amount of land that can be used at the old Page and bus garage properties by focusing the study on using only ½ of the property. Even after imposing that restriction, the study determined that the old Page and bus garage property is the most economical location out of three locations that were considered. I have been telling them for three years for free, what they have now spent tens of thousands of our local tax dollars to learn.)  

-All IT and financial functions should also be consolidated under one director per department and employed by the County. All of the mentioned consolidations will lead to a savings of over $1 million annually. (I now believe these functions should also be consolidated on the old Page and bus garage property.)

Total potential savings from these few suggestions would be in the neighborhood of $2,000,000 annually. Unfortunately, not enough People in Gloucester are speaking out against the unnecessary spending of tax dollars. There is an ongoing effort to bring industrial and other types of businesses to Gloucester. They claim we need to generate more revenue to ease the tax burden. Generating more revenue in the manner they are attempting will result in more local government and higher taxes. Gloucester enjoys one of the lowest real estate tax rates around, but it continues to inch up. When government grows, taxes rates generally increase in feet instead of inches.

The County Administrator will eventually release his proposed budget for next year. I will let you know when he does. I bet they will be asking for seven or more cents again. In the meantime, here is the web address to the County budget that was approved last year.
http://www.gloucesterva.info/Portals/0/finance/documents/FY17AdoptedBudgetandFY17AdoptedCapitalBudget.pdf?ver=2016-08-19-125753-407

Keep following and please share with everyone you know in Gloucester County.

Comments about articles and submissions for publication on GVLN may be emailed to: Kennysr61@gmail.com
Let your voice be heard on any topic pertaining to our community.
We will publish many opinions the newspapers will not.

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point, Virginia
Kennysr61@gmail.com

My experiences while serving as an At-Large member of the Gloucester County, Virginia Public Utilities Advisory Committee (PUAC) (The 5th in a series of articles about my experiences and findings)


Our Public Sewer Collection System

Like our public water system, parts of our public sewer collection system are very old and in need of attention sooner than later. Our sewer system is made up of a series of underground pipes, manholes and pumping stations; with some components in the Courthouse area dating back to the 1950’s.

Many of the Courthouse area sewer components and components in other areas of our sewer system are not sealed to prevent rain and ground water from entering the system and to prevent sewer water from escaping into the environment. In fact there is at least one building in the Courthouse area that has its storm drain pipes connected to our public sewer system. When rain and groundwater enter our sewer system it greatly increases the amount of sewer water that must be treated before it can be released back into the environment. Rain and ground water infiltration also increases the workload on our pumping stations, causing some stations to be flooded and overwhelmed during heavy rain and flood events. Because sewer pumping stations are typically built on low land, overwhelmed and flooded sewer systems have the potential to cause negative environmental impacts to our creeks, rivers, streams, etc. All of these negative impacts equate to a lot of tax and utility customer dollars being flushed down the drain.

Environmentally sound, operationally capable and dependable pumping stations are necessary components of our sewer system. Some of our older pumping stations pose significant operational and environmental risks. At least two of our pumping stations need to be completely replaced due to their age, size and the way they were built. We also have several pumping stations that need to be upgraded because they are so old that it is impossible to obtain repair and replacement parts. These stations typically contain two pumps, but some of our stations only have one operational pump. Not having an operational backup pump significantly decreases dependability and greatly increases environmental and other risks. It will cost a substantial amount of money to upgrade the pumping stations that need it, but it will cost far less than complete replacement of the stations. The needs of our pumping stations are all part of normal public sewer system operations and maintenance and should have been financially planned for years ago.

Employee safety in and around sewer pump stations, manholes and other such high risk areas should always be a high priority to those we hire and elect. Sadly and alarmingly that is not what I found to be the case in Gloucester County. In fact, it was quite the opposite.

Sewer pumping stations pose numerous health and safety risks to those who operate and maintain them. Sewer gases can form in pumping station tanks that will incapacitate a person within three seconds. Imagine climbing down a ladder into a tank 15 feet deep with liquid several feet deep below you. Imagine becoming incapacitated after you take one or two breaths. You will fall in and die if you are not already connected to a retrieval system and someone uses it to remove you from the tank immediately. It has happened, many, many times all over the world. In fact, in September 1996 four construction workers died on the Navel Weapons Station pier in Yorktown. One man entered a pumping station tank and became incapacitated. Another man entered to help the first man and he too was knocked out by sewer gas. Another man went in to help, he too fell out. A fourth man climbed in and he went down too. A fifth man called for help when he discovered what happened, but it was too late. All four men were dead within minutes because mandated employee safety procedures were not followed. What is even worse is they had an air quality tester and a retrieval system right there with them, but chose not to utilize them.  

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration or OSHA has established mandatory employee safety procedures for entering confined spaces like sewer manholes and pumping station tanks. Failure to follow OSHA mandated permit required confined space entry procedures can result in injury and death of employees; and fines, jail time and lawsuits for supervisors, executives, businesses, counties, cities, etc. Utilities has a portable tripod and wench retrieval system that can be connected to a single person when they enter some types of confined spaces. This system does not work at some of our pumping stations because of they way the stations were built and how much room the tripod requires. I suggested constructing a fixed retrieval system at these pump stations, but do not know if anything has been done as of yet to protect our employees and comply with law. Utilities also has air quality testers, but it appears they started using them only year or so ago. For years our elected representatives, hired government administrators and leaders of our utilities department have been allowing our labor level employees to enter potential death traps, on almost a daily bases, without testing air quality, utilizing adequate retrieval systems or following other workplace safety laws.

Over the years a heck of a lot of what I have shared in this and other articles about my experiences on the PUAC has been made known to our elected representatives and hired administrators. Over the years they have all continued to kick the can down the road. Well, the can has become thin and the road short. Before our current elected representatives throw more money away on pipe dreams of industrializing our County in support of turning it into a retirement community, they need to rectify our infrastructure deficiencies and set in place ordinances that will provide the necessary mandates to prevent further neglect, fraud, waste and abuse of our public water and sewer systems.

Keep following and please share with everyone you know in Gloucester County.

Comments about my articles and submissions for publication on GVLN may be emailed to: Kennysr61@gmail.com
Let your voice be heard on any topic pertaining to our community.
We will publish many opinions the newspapers will not.

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point, Virginia

Kennysr61@gmail.com      

Friday, January 27, 2017

Who Owns Your Land; You Or Our Local Government?

Gloucester, VA - Picture taken for the new Gloucester Links & News website.  Gloucestercounty-va.com


Another Rezoning Request
Here goes Gloucester County, Virginia down the rezoning road again. Gloucester resident and businessman, C.W. Davis is asking our local government to rezone 5.4 acres of land on Short Lane so he can build five, four unit, apartment buildings; for a total of 20 apartments. Mr. Davis’ land and the land surrounding his are currently zoned for single family homes only. Our county government is recommending the Planning Commission deny Mr. Davis request which will be deliberated during a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission meeting on February 2, 2017.

Over the last couple or three years there have been numerous requests submitted to our local government to have land rezoned to allow the construction of approximately 440 apartments or apartment like units. (i.e. condos, town homes, etc) Of those requests only one has been denied by our Board of Supervisors; the request of Gloucester resident and businessman, Tabb Bridges. Mr. Bridges requested that a single lot located in an established single family dwelling neighborhood in the courthouse area be rezoned so he could build one duplex rental unit (two apartments). One of our elected supervisors had this to say about the Board of Supervisors decision to deny Mr. Bridges rezoning request.

“First, the proposed development was right in the center of a cluster of single family homes.  A duplex would look out of place in that subdivision, would you not agree?  It would have caused a slippery slope of events going forward, and I am opposed to "micro zoning".” 

“Second, we believe the Comprehensive Plan incorrectly classified this subdivision as multi family use (we will be correcting that).” 

“Thirdly, while not all of the residents appeared at our meeting, we were inundated with an overwhelming number of residents opposed to the proposed development.”

The following was my reply.

As I understand it; micro zoning is the detailed preparation of land use maps by local bodies and public authorities, fixing specific land uses for each site (such as residential, educational, commercial, etc.). Micro zoning also details the density of land uses at particular sites. In other words; micro zoning establishes a detailed land use pattern.

I too, am against micro zoning, but it appears we may interpret the words “micro zoning” somewhat differently. In my simple mind I believe Gloucester County is micro zoned and such zoning is further micro managed when requests like Mr. Bridges’ are denied and others are approved.

Basing decisions on “how something looks” is micro managing micro zoning to the extreme. What you find acceptable from a “how it looks” standpoint may not be acceptable to others and vise versa. As I shared in my article on GVLN, there are duplex units within multiple neighborhoods here at Gloucester Point that cause no negative impacts on any of the surrounding single family dwellings. Most people don’t even notice they are duplexes. So I guess my answer would be; no to your question about the duplexes “looking out of place” within the courthouse area neighborhood.

As for potential errors in the comprehensive plan; I don’t know what to tell you other than it is the BOS’s plan. I am of the opinion that local and other government involvement in how a landowner uses their property should be strictly limited to protecting the health, welfare and safety of the citizenry. Nothing more, nothing less. No level of government within the United States should have the power to prevent any land use based on how something will look or whether or not it will aesthetically fit in with surrounding properties. I also believe no level of government should have the power to restrict growth to predetermined areas as is the case with the “Village Plan” and “Development District” concepts our local government has adopted without consent of the people.

It is great the people of the neighborhood at the courthouse successfully rallied together to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, but they are not the only ones to speak against such rezoning requests. I would be willing to confidently bet that if the voices of every person in the Gloucester Point, Hayes, Guinea and Wicomico areas (primary users of the shopping center) were heard, there would be overwhelming opposition to the 120 apartments that will now be constructed as part of the York River Crossing Shopping Center. I would also be willing to bet that if all of the responses the BOS received, in one form or another, pertaining to the YRCS rezoning were tallied, we would find there were more voices who spoke in opposition of the rezoning than who spoke in favor of it. We just were not as organized and public about it as the folks in the courthouse area neighborhood were.      

Personally, I believe we have more than enough existing apartments and apartments approved for future construction, but who am I to say what Mr. Davis or any other land owner may or may not do with their property? How will our Board of Supervisors “Rule” on Mr. Davis’ rezoning request? Will the “good ole boy” system come into play? Will they continue to support United Nations land use agendas on American soil? Or will they begin to return Gloucester to the Republic land of freedom that it once was? At this point, your guess is as good as mine. We will continue to follow this story and provide you with updates as necessary.

Email your comments to Kennysr61@gmail.com

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point, Virginia

Monday, January 23, 2017

My experiences while serving as an At-Large member of the Gloucester County, Virginia Public Utilities Advisory Committee (PUAC) (The 4th in a series of articles about my experiences and findings)



Our Public Water Distribution System

Once our drinking water is processed at our treatment plants it is pumped into our mostly underground pipe distribution system. I say mostly underground because within our system there are three elevated water storage tanks commonly referred to as water towers. These towers are where our water is stored to readily accommodate customer demand. Ideally in water systems like ours where hydraulic pressure created by elevating the storage tanks (gravity) eliminates the need for electricity powered pumps to deliver water under pressure to customers, elevated water towers should be constructed at as close to the same capacity and elevation as possible. There are numerous reasons for building water towers like this; of which include water quality, pressure control and system costs. Unfortunately our water towers were not built that way.

Our public water supply system began in the Courthouse area back in the 1950’s. A separate water tower and public supply system was constructed in the Gloucester Point area in the early 1970’s. The two systems were connected together and our third water tower was constructed in the mid 1990’s. Our public water supply system now has a 250,000 gal water tower located in the Courthouse area, a one million gal tower at the old Page Middle School site and a 250,000 tower at Gloucester Point that are all connected together and to our water treatment plants. The Courthouse tower’s full water elevation is 198 feet above sea level, the Page tower was constructed with a full elevation of 215 feet above sea level and the Point tower has a full water elevation of 160 feet above sea level. As can be seen, the Courthouse and Page towers are quite a bit higher in elevation than the Point tower, with the Page tower, geographically located in between the other two, being the highest and largest of the three.

I am of the opinion that the Page water tower was built at the elevation it was to facilitate water requirements associated with the Gloucester Business Park where Canon and other businesses are located. In other words; the good ole boy system was working at its finest.  

The differences in our water tower sizes and elevations make it hard to control water quality in the Courthouse and Point water towers; I’ll explain. Once a water tower is filled, the supply to the tower is supposed to be turned off until the level of water in the tank drops to a specified level. Once the specified level is reached the supply to the tower is turned back on until it is full again. This fill, drop scenario is commonly referred to as water turnover and is supposed to occur continuously. This does not happen at the Courthouse and Point towers because the Page tower is so much larger and higher in elevation that it causes the other two towers to constantly remain full. When stored water does not get turned over frequently and regularly, disinfectant byproducts (DBPs) begin to consolidate.

DBPs are chemical, organic and inorganic substances that can form during a reaction of a disinfectant with naturally present organic matter in water. There are too many types of DBPs to list here but many are suspected of causing damage to the bladder, liver, kidneys and central nervous system. Some are also considered carcinogenic.

In order to achieve sufficient water turnover in the Courthouse and Point tower; Utilities employees must manually lower the water level in each tower by dumping water from the tanks onto the ground. Unfortunately, it does not appear Utilities has always been consistent in turning the water over in these towers. I believe our current Utilities employees do a much better job making sure DBPs do not build up, but I also know Utilities has sent high level DBP notifications to customers in the Gloucester Point area within the last year. I am unsure of the source of the DBPs that drove customer notification in the Point area because DBPs are known to consolidate in other areas of a water supply system. I do know the DBPs customers were warned about at the Point are associated with bladder cancer.

Our system currently has underground water supply lines that run along Short Lane Road, Guinea Road, Terrapin Cove Road, Providence Road and other roads, streets and cul-de-sacs  in which the waterlines dead end. Dead end lines such as the ones noted are also areas where DBPs are known to consolidate. This problem was first brought to my attention during my first visit to our water treatment plants. The statement made to me was to the effect of no one being able to guarantee that water high in DBPs was not consumed at T.C. Walker School which is supplied by the Short Lane Road waterline. It was added that it probably was consumed over a number of years. T.C. Walker is not our only public school connected to our public water supply system in this manner, as Achilles Elementary School is supplied with water from the end of the dead end Guinea Road waterline. An automatic flushing device was added to the Short Lane Road waterline about a year ago and Utilities’ current leadership has implemented a regular flushing and monitoring schedule that should prevent DBP consolidation in the other dead end lines.

Regularly flushing waterlines and fire hydrants is part of operating and maintaining a public water supply system. Like everything else I have talked about in these articles; regular flushing of our waterlines is something that did not occur for many years due to mismanagement and neglect. Now we have buildups of sediment in the bottom of many of our waterlines which causes many customers to end up with cloudy water in their sink whenever a fire hydrant is opened. Exercising valves and hydrants is part of any good flushing plan, but again, is something that was neglected in Gloucester for years. Now we have many valves in our system that will not close completely when needed. Utilities’ new leaders have made some progress in this area through reactionary efforts, but there is a lot more that needs to be done in a proactive and preventive manner.

Some areas of our water supply system are very old and in need of replacement. Utilities’ is constantly repairing leaks and replacing components of the system. Unless there is a much higher priority placed on water quality and accountability, I believe the repairs will continue and will likely intensify until such time as something catastrophic happens. I will share more about our water accountability in a later article.

It will take a rather large financial investment to bring our public water supply system up to acceptable standards and performance. We need to correct our water tower issues. We need to replace our out dated and defective water supply pipes and apparatuses. We need to adopt and enforce up to date construction standards. And we need to establish and enforce policies and procedures that will prevent future neglect and mismanagement of our public water supply system.

In my next article I will introduce our public sewer system. Environment conscious folks will not want to miss it.

Comments may be emailed to: Kennysr61@gmail.com.

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point, Virginia

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

SpeakUp Gloucester


Gloucester County, Virginia's local government is currently promoting SpeakUp Gloucester. SpeakUp is a way for the People of Gloucester to publicly bring their complements, concerns, suggestions and opinions to the attention of our local government. It is likely input provided by the People on SpeakUp will be considered when our local government employees and elected representatives make decisions. I am personally encouraging all Gloucester People who do not want to see larger local government, higher taxes, an out of control public school system or more local government control over what you can do with your land to visit and become familiar with SpeakUp Gloucester and sign up by providing a user name and password. To visit SpeakUp click on this link: SpeakUp Gloucester or copy and paste the following in the address bar of your browser: http://speakupgloucesterva.info/

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point, Virginia



Tuesday, January 3, 2017

My experiences while serving as an At-Large member of the Gloucester County, Virginia Public Utilities Advisory Committee (PUAC) (The 3rd in a series of articles about my experiences and findings)


Our Water Treatment Facilities

We all know having access to safe, drinkable water is a necessity in sustaining human life. When we think of drinking water we think “clean”. Don’t we? Shouldn’t the plant our water comes from be clean and the water from it clean when we consume it? Of course it should. And “safe”? It has to be “safe” beyond reproach; Right? Heck yes it does. Do you know where your water comes from? Do you know what is in it? Are we paying a fair price for our water? In this and other articles I will share what I know about our local government operated public water supply system and sewer system. This article is about my first visit to our water treatment plants.

In Gloucester County, Virginia, some residences and businesses obtain water from private wells while others obtain this life sustaining element from our public water supply system. Some of our public schools obtain water from private type wells while others obtain it from our public water supply system. Many people with private wells and their children are likely to consume water from our public supply system at schools, at church, in restaurants, at the hospital, in doctor offices, at a friend’s house and so on. There are a lot of people who come to Gloucester County to visit family and friends, enjoy our historical attractions and attend various events. Many of these people also consume water from our public supply system. With so many people drinking our public water one would think our local government would do everything necessary to insure the safety, quality and availability of the water so many of us consume. That certainly “was not” the impression I was left with after my first visit to our water treatment facilities.

Our local government obtains water from two different types of sources and operates two different types of treatment plants that are located next to each other. Treated water from both sources are combined together to make up the water provided in our public supply system. Our first water source is Beaver Dam Reservoir, which began being used to supply our public water system when our surface water treatment plant was constructed in 1990. Our second source of water is the Potomac Aquifer. We have two deep wells near the water treatment plants that pull brackish (salt containing) water from the aquifer and sends it to our second type of treatment plant; our reverse osmosis plant that was placed into operation in 2003.

When I first visited our water treatment facilities in 2014, I was given a tour by then plant manager Brent Payne. Mr. Payne has since been promoted to Assistant Director of our Utility Department; in my opinion, a well deserved promotion. I have visited several such treatment plants over the years, but I have to say, our plant was without doubt, the absolute worst of them all. Most plants I have visited appeared very clean and well maintained, yet I found our surface water treatment plant to be just the opposite. Mr. Payne showed me various pictures of what areas of our plant looked like when he first began working there and it was even worse than what I was seeing as I walked through the plant. It was evident by the pictures, Mr. Payne and his people had made numerous improvements, but there was still a lot of work to be done to return our plant to an acceptable, up to date condition.

One of the larger rooms in our surface water treatment plant contains numerous large water pipes, valves and pumps that are used to control the flow of water during treatment processes and subsequent implementation of disinfected water into the public supply system. It was evident recent repairs had been made to some of the components within this room, but there was a lot that still needed attention. There were trails of water running into floor drains that were coming from small leaks in various places. There were bolts in valves and other components that were corroded and needed to be replaced several years before I first saw them. It looked like no preventive maintenance had occurred for many years. The only items in the room that looked like they had been painted in the last 20 years were items worked on by Mr. Payne and his crew. Not long after my first visit, a leak occurred in this room which sprayed water onto an electrical panel that was not designed to resist water. A short occurred in the panel, equipment was damaged and our facility and employees were placed in harms way because our local government ignored safety requirements that are diligently enforced upon private citizens and businesses.

I saw rooms inside our surface water treatment plant that were filled with various items that were piled and mixed together with zero thought of accountability, organization or value. Most of the walls throughout our plant looked dingy and as if they had not been painted for many years. The lighting was poor and ventilation seemed inadequate in most areas as it was very humid with the continuous smell of chlorine in the air. 

I went into another larger room that is primarily dedicated to storing and adding various chemicals and compounds used in the surface water treatment processes. Within this room was a smaller room that is dedicated to adding activated carbon (essentially charcoal dust) into the water treatment process. The activated carbon is contained in bags that resemble plastic lined paper grass seed sacks. These bags are periodically dumped by hand into a hopper by our employees. When they dump the bags, black dust fills the air unless there is an adequate exhaust and filter system to collect it as it comes out of the bag. No such system existed at the time of my first visit. The walls and everything else in the room were black from years of carbon dust buildup. When asked, Mr. Payne said he could not guarantee every employee utilized dusts masks, eye protection or other safety devices every time carbon was dumped into the hopper.

Activated Carbon is relatively safe to use, but prolonged exposure to carbon dust has been found to cause pulmonary disorders. For this reason OSHA has established airborne exposure limits and is the reason I wasted no time in bringing my concerns about potential health risks to the attention of our BOS and County administration. A rudimentary exhaust system has since been installed, but I have no knowledge of its make up or effectiveness.   

After visiting our surface water treatment plant we headed to the reverse osmosis plant. This newer plant appeared, at first glance, to be in much better shape than our surface water plant. Mr. Payne explained about the water for this plant coming from two nearby wells that tap into the Potomac Aquifer. He also explained that one of the wells is not used as much as the other because it was positioned in a place containing high iron content. He further explained that iron greatly shortens the life of the plant’s expensive filters. The only way to correct this problem is to drill at another location, verify the water quality and then construct the well pump house. It looks like someone previously skipped the “verify the water quality” step. I wonder how much that screw up will eventually cost us.    

Residents, businesses and others, who obtain water for human consumption from private wells, are responsible for monitoring the safety and quality of water drawn from “their” wells. Samples of private well water can be tested by our local, state government run, Health Department or by private labs like Reed and Associates in Newport News. Our local government is primarily responsible for monitoring the public system water, but the Health Department plays an “oversight” role in the monitoring process. Our public school system is responsible for monitoring water drawn from wells at our schools that are not connected to our public supply system. The Health Department also plays an oversight role in this monitoring process. Considering instances like Flint Michigan; in which local and state government monitors hid substandard test results, coupled with some of the things I have seen and learned about our public water system; I am not convinced our local government has always done the job we have paid or elected them to do.

I will share more of what I have learned about the quality of our public water in later articles. Before I close I want to share this: So far, the picture I have painted of our public water and sewer department is fairly negative. I guess it appears that way because there have been so many years of neglect. In all fairness to the people currently leading our Utilities Department, I have to say they are dedicated, knowledgeable and capable employees. They did not create the mess I am sharing with you in these articles; in fact, they have made some improvements. Our Utilities Department could use more support from our Board of Supervisors, but Utilities and the PUAC could do a much better job of publicly providing our BOS and us with an accurate, nonpolitical and complete picture of the condition and capabilities of our water and sewer infrastructure. More on that later.
Feel free to share this article at your discretion.

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point, Virginia  

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Gloucester County, Virginia Board of Supervisors Deny Mr. Tabb Bridges’ Rezoning Request

Image result for zoning pictures gloucester virginia

During the December 13, 2016 Gloucester County Board of Supervisors meeting, a Public Hearing was conducted pursuant to a request from Gloucester County developer Tabb Bridges, to have a lot located in an established single family dwelling neighborhood in the courthouse area rezoned, so he can build a duplex rental unit.

During the Public Hearing it was revealed that Mr. Bridges had spoken to someone employed by Gloucester’s Planning Department, about the possibility of having the property rezoned before he purchased it. According to Mr. Bridges’ public comments, he understood there were no guarantees that the rezoning would be approved by the BOS. Anne Ducey-Ortiz with the Planning Department conducted a presentation suggesting Mr. Bridges’ intentions of building a multifamily dwelling fit the objectives of the BOS’s comprehensive plan and the Courthouse Village plan that was created by the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust. Neither of these plans have ever been approved or consented to by the taxpayers of Gloucester County, yet the taxpayers are forced to fund their visions of grandeur.

Several people spoke during the public comment portion of the Public Hearing, most of who were against Mr. Bridges’ rezoning request. Those people who spoke against the rezoning all seem to have at least one desire in common. They do not want to see Gloucester County turned into the high density type places they live here to avoid; or at least not in their neighborhood. Those who spoke in favor of the rezoning fit more in the category of the voice of business interests. As far as this category of folks goes, they would just as soon see sky scrappers and chemical plants in Gloucester than to consider the impacts on those of us who have historically enjoyed our bedroom community culture.

For once, it appears the voices of the people were heard and Mr. Bridges’ proposal was denied by the BOS in a five to two split decision, but were those voices really what caused five supervisors vote in a way that is contrary to their comprehensive plan and the village plan? It is kind of hard to tell because this type of road has been traveled by our local elected representatives numerous times before with completely different outcomes.

Not so long ago, a rezoning application submitted by York River Crossing Associates (The Freeman’s) was approved by the BOS to allow approximately 120 apartment units to be built next to Food Lion at Hayes. The apartments will be situated on ten and a half acres of land and will share some parking with the adjoining theater and shopping center. These apartments will be built directly in front of several single family homes that are part of an existing single family home neighborhood. When the Public Hearing on this high density development was held, numerous people spoke against the rezoning and expressed the same reasons for denying the request as those who spoke against Mr. Bridges’ request. There was a different outcome for the Freeman’s, as their rezoning request was approved by the BOS.

Another instance that comes to mind is the rezoning request submitted by Charles Records of Zandler Development on behalf of our local American Legion Post. In this instance the BOS approved Mr. Records’ request to rezone property to allow for the construction of over 200 apartments. There were adjacent single family homeowners who were against this rezoning also, but like those who spoke against the apartments next to Food Lion, they were ignored.

So was it really the people’s voices that caused the BOS to deny Mr. Bridges’ rezoning request? I don’t think so. I believe there is a double standard in this County when it comes to rezoning and other requests. I believe those who voted against Mr. Bridges’ proposal were doing nothing more than appeasing the people in the courthouse area as has become typical and are setting a precedent of preventing smaller developers from achieving success while they cater to the whims and desires of larger developers; no matter what the people have to say about it.

I also believe our current BOS is just another part of our local government that thinks and acts like they have the power and control to tell people what they can and cannot do with their land. In Mr. Bridges’ case, he is the one who is being negatively impacted by the BOS decision to deny his rezoning request. I further believe, had Mr. Bridges waited until after the 2017 BOS election, he would have received a more favorable outcome.

I grew up and currently live in the Water View subdivision at Gloucester Point. Several duplex apartments were built into Water View and the other adjoining neighborhoods over the years and have not caused any negative impacts on the single family homes located around them. In this instance; I believe Mr. Bridges was treated unfairly. I believe he should have at least been offered the opportunity to swap his property for County owned property, like it appears Mr. Kerns’ did in order to prevent rental units from being built at the entrance to Supervisor Meyers’ estate.     

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.

Gloucester Point