Sussex County discusses tighter buffers, sediment controls and new enforcement tied to turbidity testing

County engineering staff presented a package of proposed changes to Sussex County’s buffer and stormwater code at the Aug. 19 council meeting, saying the revisions would concentrate protections where runoff and sediment risk is highest and create clearer guidance for applicants earlier in the review process.

Project Manager Madlars said the update would remove some averaging guardrails that currently allow applicants to relocate required buffer area and instead give staff authority to locate concentrated buffers "in the concentration areas" where grading or topography will concentrate runoff. He said the revisions would also require use of existing statewide practices — such as extended detention (a 48‑hour functional equivalent) and other measures — as a sediment trap prior to ground disturbance in higher‑risk sites.

"We will write into the code that this is where you must concentrate that buffer," Madlars said, adding the county would adopt a criteria matrix (points-based) to determine when enhanced measures are required.

Council members generally signaled support for the design changes but pressed staff on enforcement. Madlars proposed using turbidity measurements provided by the Sussex Conservation District as a trigger for county action, including retesting and, in some cases, temporary holds on building inspections until retesting shows compliance. "At the point of discharge, an NTU over 1,000 would, in my opinion, be less than 1%" of sites once stacked protections are in place, Madlars said, but he acknowledged enforcement language requires legal review.

Several councilors warned that immediate enforcement tied to a new ordinance could unfairly penalize projects that were permitted and underway under prior rules. Council discussion focused on whether enforcement should be married to the effective date of the design ordinance, whether exemptions should apply for projects already under construction, and what retesting timelines are reasonable after a rain event. Commissioner McCarran and others urged flexibility on retest timing; Commissioner Riley pushed for stronger measures to deter repeat offenders.

County Attorney Robertson told the council separating design standards from enforcement in two distinct ordinances is legally feasible but cautioned the county to draft effective-date and exemption language carefully so it does not impose new standards retroactively on projects that were legal when approved. "If you adopt an ordinance on Tuesday and you've got a project that's legal on Monday, you have to see how it's worded," Robertson said.

Madlars said staff would return with more refined enforcement options and recommended thresholds (including a sliding scale for retest timing and escalation for repeat violations). He also suggested an alternative: require individual small-trap plans for phases of home-building when turbidity issues are identified, a measure that would focus remediation on builders rather than halting inspections countywide.

Council members asked for additional legal and technical work before staff drafts ordinance language. The council took no vote on the draft enforcement measures and asked staff to return with clarified effective-date language, retest timelines and example thresholds for when enhanced sediment-capture practices would be required.

What happens next: engineering staff will refine the proposed code language, add recommended effective-date and enforcement thresholds, and return to the council for further review before any ordinance is introduced.