Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas; acceptance of signed & sealed plan in lieu of local plan review.
Summary
HB2331 would create a new option for certain rural Tidewater localities that administer a Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program (VESCP) within Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. For qualifying land-disturbing activities of at least 2,500 square feet but less than one acre, the bill allows a licensed professional retained by the applicant to prepare plans and supporting calculations, sign and seal them, and certify that the plan complies with applicable state law and regulations. In those cases, the locality may accept the signed and sealed submission instead of conducting its own local plan review or retaining a local certified plan reviewer.
The bill is limited to rural Tidewater localities and does not change the underlying requirement for performance bonds where otherwise required. It also updates related definitions in the erosion and sediment control statutes, including terms tied to VESCP administration, certified reviewers, farm buildings and agritourism-related structures, erosion impact areas, and stormwater/land-disturbance concepts. Overall, the measure is aimed at streamlining review for smaller projects in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas while preserving state oversight standards through professional certification and sealing requirements.
Impact
HB2331 would amend Virginia’s erosion and sediment control law in Title 62.1 by adding a local flexibility provision for rural Tidewater localities in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. It would allow those localities to rely on a licensed professional’s signed and sealed plan, rather than requiring local certified plan review, for certain mid-sized land-disturbing activities. The bill affects local governments, applicants, and licensed engineers, architects, landscape architects, land surveyors, and soil scientists who prepare and certify plans, while leaving performance bond requirements intact.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the bill had some support but also meaningful hesitation: the subcommittee recommendation to lay the bill on the table passed 7-2. That outcome indicates the proposal was not broadly embraced in its initial committee setting, even though it advanced through discussion. No transcript excerpts are available, so the record shows procedural support for further consideration but not a clear consensus in favor of enactment.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether localities should be allowed to waive or bypass local plan review in favor of a professional’s signed and sealed submission. Supporters likely view the bill as a streamlining measure that reduces administrative burden for smaller projects and rural localities, while opponents may worry about reduced local oversight in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas and the adequacy of relying on private professionals instead of local reviewers. The narrow 7-2 subcommittee vote suggests disagreement over the balance between efficiency and environmental/regulatory control.