Kent County commissioners vote to seek state answers after audit, missing septic records hamper homeowners

Kent County commissioners voted Tuesday to send formal written questions to state agencies after an audit of the Kent County Health Department and multiple constituent complaints about lost septic ("perk") records left homeowners unable to use previously approved tests.

The action came after homeowners Thomas A. Tucker and Bonnie Tucker told the commissioners they relied on a 2010 approved perk test and paid for a 2017 purchase that included a vacant lot with an indicated septic reserve area. When they attempted to move forward with construction, county sanitary staff told them the department had no record of the earlier approval and required new tests. Thomas A. Tucker said the change forced repeated new surveys, stormwater plans and test digs and added cost and delay: “We bought the property in 02/2017 … the parcel was 9 and a half acres with an approved perk,” he told the commissioners.

Realtor Billy Norris, who said he has worked on Kent County real estate and environmental health matters for 42 years, described similar incidents and told the commission he found plats recorded in the county land records even though the health office lacked corresponding files. “I went back into the health department with that after they told me they had no records because all the records disappeared,” Norris said.

Commissioners and staff described a broader problem raised by the audit: apparent gaps in departmental records and a lack of licensed sanitarian coverage since 2023. County staff said the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) conducted an audit spanning 2015–2024; commissioners said they received copies of the report and that it contained “scathing” findings that will require further review. County staff and planning officials confirmed copies of recorded plats exist in Kent County Planning, Housing & Zoning files; planning staff said a plat in the Tucker case bears an engineer’s seal and signatures and appears in the county land records.

County legal counsel and planning staff cautioned that if the health department refuses to accept a recorded plat as valid, the zoning office cannot issue a building permit without the health-district sign-off. Counsel warned that building without health approval could risk stop-work orders, fines or injunctive relief from the state health agency.

After extended discussion and public testimony from property owners and realtors, the board voted to direct staff to prepare and send written questions to the Maryland Department of the Environment and the local health department asking, among other items, why the audit covered 2015–2024, who conducted it, and whether recorded plats with signed septic-reserve areas provide a valid basis for permitting. The motion passed by voice vote.

Commissioners said the written inquiry is intended to get specific, documented answers that the county and affected property owners can rely on; they also asked staff to report back and to consider whether additional legal steps are necessary. Commissioners and residents repeatedly emphasized the issue affects realtors, landowners, septic contractors and prospective buyers countywide.

The board did not direct or authorize litigation during the open discussion; county counsel said he preferred advising the body in closed session about legal options if needed. The commissioners also noted the county’s funding role: Kent County contributes local funds to support the health department facility but the health department staff are state employees and the county’s direct oversight is limited. Commissioners said the board will pursue answers in writing from state agencies and will follow up when responses are received.

Community members and county staff said the issue has financial consequences for affected homeowners: Norris estimated repairs or replacements can range from a few thousand dollars to as much as $18,000 in some cases, and the Tuckers described duplicative surveying and stormwater costs after being told an earlier approval was not available for use. The board asked staff to prepare a formal letter with specific questions and to return with the agencies’ written responses.