Macon passes soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance revisions
Macon County approved revisions to its soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance despite an outpouring of opposition from the public — so much so that not everyone who had signed up to speak on the issue at the Aug. 13 meeting was able to do so.
“Sedimentation is just like crime or disease — it can be managed, but not eliminated,” said aquatic biologist Bill McLarney speaking in opposition to the changes. “We need to minimize it. In this context, it is my strong belief that any action which potentially doubles the amount of bare soil exposed to erosion during the process of land development is a step in the wrong direction.”
Previously, the Macon County soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance required plans for soil and erosion control on any project that disturbs a half-acre of land or more. Now, Macon County has reverted to the state minimum and will only require such plans and restrictions for land disturbances of one acre or more.
Revisions to this ordinance and two others that concern the floodplain in Macon County have been the topic of much discussion since they were first suggested by Commissioner Josh Young back in March. At the behest of commissioners, the planning board came up with some recommended changes to the ordinances and put the decision back to commissioners to approve the changes or keep them as they are.
However, because there has been so much input from the public throughout the whole process, at the commission’s July meeting Chairman Gary Shields presented a plan in which the board would take up one of three ordinances at each meeting throughout August, September and October.
When the board took up the first of these ordinances at its August meeting, six members of the public spoke during the public comment period in opposition to the revisions to the soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance, including McLarney and Kevin McCaskill, of the Macon County Farm Bureau Board of Directors.
Related Items
Flood damage prevention ordinance, dam removal still on the table
The Joyful Botanist: Banking on it
Helene damage coming into focus in Waynesville
Jackson, Macon, Swain reach FRL agreement
“I don’t believe that this needs to be changed,” said McCaskill. “We are not the coastal plain, we’re not the piedmont, we’re the mountains. Our soils are fragile, our ground is steep and there were a lot of good minds that worked many years ago on developing these ordinances to protect not only our soils, but also our neighbors that are downstream. Let’s use a little common sense and realize we can leave this ordinance alone.”
At least 15 other people were signed up to speak during public comment, the majority of whom were speaking in opposition to the proposed changes to the ordinance, but commissioners cut the public comment period off at 45 minutes.
Shields said that those remaining 15 people would be first on the list to speak at the next meeting, but a member of the public pointed out that at the next meeting, the board would have already made a decision on the soil erosion ordinance and be moving on to the water supply watershed protection ordinance.
“We’ve had the public hearings on all three of these last month,” said Board Attorney Eric Ridenhour. “So, the public hearings have been held, this is just public comment on any topic.”
More than two hours after the public comment period had ended, the commission took up the revisions to the soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance.
“There’s no malicious intent here, I don’t like sediment in our creeks either, I don’t want sediment in our creeks,” said Young.
Young insinuated that people getting permits to develop land will often say they are disturbing less than half an acre when really, they are disturbing more, just so they do not have to provide a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan.
“We’re enticing our contractors to go to the permit office and no matter what happens you say less than a half an acre,” Young said.
He also said that gardening and farming can create more erosion than construction sites.
“The state of North Carolina has a set of codes that, more or less, we abide by. There’s a third of the state in the mountain region and we’re the only county that I’m aware of that has these guidelines,” said Young. “I hope we can just respectfully agree to disagree.”
All commissioners, save Commissioner Danny Antoine, voted in favor of the revisions for a 4-1 vote.
“I really and truly don’t think that going from half an acre to an acre is going to create any more erosion as long as there is enforcement for these violators,” said Commissioner John Shearl.
Antoine had previously voiced his support for the public’s leaning.
“My personal thoughts on this are pretty simple,” said Antoine at the commission’s July meeting. “After hearing you all and learning so much from you all, and I do believe I’ve learned a lot… I’m currently for keeping these ordinances as they are with no changes.”
