Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chesapeake staff propose moving many zoning, building and floodplain penalties from criminal to civil enforcement
Summary
City staff presented amendments to reclassify most zoning, building and floodplain code violations from criminal to civil penalties, reorganize Chapter 14 for readability, and raise civil fines (proposed $200 first offense, $500 subsequent); council asked staff to draft an enforcement policy and continued the ordinance consideration to a future agenda.
Kevin Kemp, deputy director of development and permits, told the Chesapeake City Council at its May 19 work session that staff is proposing three ordinance changes: updates to the zoning ordinance, a reorganization of chapter 14 (building regulations), and edits to the floodplain management code that would make most violations civil rather than criminal and increase civil fines.
“The goal of our ordinances is to come into compliance. They’re not punitive,” Kemp said while walking council through the 150‑page reformatting and the two substantive policy changes: reclassifying certain violations from criminal to civil and increasing civil fines. He summarized the proposed penalties as $200 for a first civil offense and $500 for subsequent offenses, and said the ordinance would allow a person to pay half the fine before a court date to avoid further proceedings.
Staff framed the change as a tool that will make enforcement more efficient and less likely to impose lifelong consequences on residents. Kemp said criminal charges can carry a higher burden of proof and might deter courts from issuing default judgments that advance compliance; civil enforcement, in contrast, can be served by inspectors and resolved more quickly.
Council members pressed staff on several specifics, including how the new code would treat pools and spas moved to a new Chapter 71; whether daily civil fines could rapidly accumulate to the $5,000 threshold that would permit criminal prosecution; and why some categories—sign violations, certain land‑development violations and failures to meet CUP stipulations—remain criminal. The City Attorney responded that state law constrains which violations localities may treat as civil and which must remain criminal.
Councilman Lewis raised a concern echoed by others: because state law allows each day of noncompliance to count as a separate civil offense, a resident who is trying in good faith to correct a problem (for example, moving a shed or getting a contractor) could theoretically face escalating daily fines that reach the criminal threshold quickly. “I just think there is the potential here that someone could get really hemmed up with a significant amount of fines and could hit that $5,000 literally in a week,” he said.
Staff and the city attorney said their departments historically have not pursued daily fines in that manner and that judges typically look for reasonableness. Nevertheless, multiple council members asked staff to draft a written enforcement policy clarifying that inspectors and prosecutors should use discretion and allow reasonable cure periods; staff agreed to return with a recommended policy.
The ordinance itself will be considered as a docketed item on a future council agenda; concurrently, staff requested a continuance of the formal zoning text amendment (PLN text civil enforcement) to give council time to review the work session outcomes and any recommended enforcement policy. The council set the continuation to 09/15/2026.
What’s next: staff will prepare the ordinance language and a recommended enforcement policy for council review ahead of the continued public hearing and formal vote.
