Staff reports fewer large soil‑importing operations but residents press for stronger enforcement and clearer rules

County staff told the Transportation Planning Committee the soil‑importing ordinance reduced large commercial soil‑importing operations but also identified enforcement challenges and recommended revisions to the residential thresholds and proof requirements.

Ed Labayog, co‑enforcement manager in the Planning Department, said the office has handled 58 cases since the ordinance began, reporting annual counts of 19 in 2020, 15 in 2021, 9 in 2022, 12 in 2023 and three so far this year. He summarized outcomes: seven permits approved, two denied, one incomplete, three in process, and several closed with no violation found or with property owners removing material voluntarily.

Labayog acknowledged operational limits: enforcement relies heavily on complaints; officers have difficulty verifying truck contents, measuring volumes on‑site, or getting timely access to properties. He said certain materials are exempt (mulch, gravel, asphalt grindings) and that the ordinance allows soil moved within the same ownership, complicating investigations. On large projects, staff emphasized administrative fees, phased approvals and periodic site visits for monitoring compliance.

Residents urged stronger enforcement and faster action. Chuck Meadows, who described a multi‑year dispute over fill on his property, said he has spent roughly $500,000 pursuing remediation and asked the county to impose fines and require remediation. Callers and in‑person speakers urged staff to accept photographic evidence, use tools such as Google Earth, impose stiffer late‑permit penalties, and pursue multi‑agency inspections when necessary.

Supervisors signaled support for revising the ordinance to give code enforcement more practical authority. One supervisor asked whether recommended revisions would address today’s concerns and told staff they wanted rules that produce meaningful enforcement results: "If the recommendations don't get us to an ordinance that gives us some teeth that's meaningful... I'm not going to support anything that's just window dressing," the supervisor said. Staff recommended revising residential requirements to allow small, routine deliveries (landscaping, gardening) without a burdensome permit while strengthening proof, source and volume documentation for larger imports and special procedures for sloped or watercourse‑adjacent properties.

Labayog highlighted one large project awaiting approvals in the county — a Cookman Road proposal that anticipates up to about 137,000 cubic yards of imported material for an equestrian pad — and said such projects require multi‑departmental clearance, fees and periodic site inspections.

The item was informational. Supervisors asked staff to return with concrete ordinance revisions and enforcement tools that will speed response, tighten evidence standards and allow coordinated inspections across county agencies.