Grading contractors, planning officials discuss county's sediment ordinance

By Lynn Hotaling

Though some expected the session to be confrontational, controversy took a back seat to cooperation during the hour-long forum.

"We're here to talk," Jackson County Planning Board Chairman Jack Debnam told some 25 earth-moving contractors. "We've never sat down together and talked about the sediment-control ordinance."

After saying that "what this meeting is about has gotten blown out of proportion," Debnam reiterated that the session's sole focus was on planners and grading contractors working together.

"It's not about fining grading contractors or penalizing anybody," Debnam said.

Jeff McCall, Jackson County's soil sediment control officer, briefly outlined the provisions of the county ordinance, which was enacted in July 2000 and took effect in November of that year.

With regard to the sections of the regulations that most affect grading jobs, the ordinance requires the landowner to fill out a notification form at the county building inspector's office if less than an acre is to be disturbed, McCall said.

If more than an acre is to be disturbed, grading activity cannot begin until his office issues a permit, McCall said.

Application for the permit, which includes a site sediment-control plan and statement of financial responsibility, must be made 30 days before ground is broken, McCall said. The plan does not have to be prepared by a professional engineer, McCall said.

While the landowner is the responsible party, McCall told the grading contractors they could help by telling the property owner of the law and asking if he has secured a permit.

All agricultural activity is exempt from the ordinance, McCall said. Logging is also exempt unless the logging is done to prepare an area for development, he said.

"If the logging is a precursor to development, then you must have a plan before you cut the first tree," McCall said.

Initial questions from contractors focused on the 30-day requirement.

"If an out-of-town property owner is here and wants something graded, he doesn't want it done in 30 days, he wants it done now," said Mike Cooper.

Securing the permit doesn't always take 30 days, McCall said, and the turnaround time is usually closer to two weeks. The 30-day provision has to stand because it's part of the state law, he said.

"What if I do the job anyway because the property owner says to?" Cooper asked.

"Right now, our beef's with him," McCall said. "The only way you're responsible is if you signed the financial responsibility form."

The question of responsibility seemed to be uppermost in the minds of the contractors.

Other topics mentioned during the often confusing meeting were making the erosion-control permit process more like the building permit process so that work couldn't begin without a grading permit and the possibility of requiring grading contractors who work in Jackson County to hold some form of license. The group was outspoken and at times several conversations were being held simultaneously.

Others brought up the concern that right now contractors are not on a level playing field in that if one refuses a job because the owner doesn't have a permit or hasn't filed the notification form, another contractor will take the job regardless of whether the landowner is complying with the ordinance.

"We're asking you to help police the property owners," Debnam said. "If they call and say 'hey, we need this lot cleared,' then you say 'hey, you need this form.'"

Bentley Robinson, a representative of the Jackson County Soil and Water Conservation District, told the contractors present about several books with information helpful to graders. He especially recommended a complete soil survey of Jackson County, which is available from his office at no charge, he said.

Robinson also took the opportunity to remind all those present that every land owner is responsible for any damage he causes through land-disturbing activity, regardless of whether a permit is required.

Several of the contractors at the meeting seemed to be under the impression that the planning board was considering an amendment to the ordinance that would hold graders financially responsible for violations of the ordinance.

"Does the planning board have a motion to hold contractors responsible?" asked contractor Gary Buchanan.

"No," Debnam said. "If you're serious about a level playing field, there's no need to get the contractors involved."

"What have we accomplished tonight, that's what I want to know?" Buchanan asked.

Debnam's answer to what had been accomplished is that planners are asking contractors to make property owners aware they need a plan and that they are liable for any damages.

"What we want ­ and this meeting is the first time we've ever sat and talked ­ is just help us out," Debnam said. "Let's see how it goes. If it doesn't work, we'll have another meeting."

The consensus among the contractors present seemed to be that the ordinance is working. Several said that sediment control has improved during the past two years.

Though it was not mentioned during Tuesday's session, a proposal to hold contractors responsible for sediment-control violations was discussed during a Sept. 19 commissioners meeting. The Sylva Herald reported Sept. 26 that several planning board members present that night, including Debnam, spoke in favor of an amendment that would hold contractors responsible for damaging runoff caused by any size land disturbance.

"We feel we are missing the boat with our erosion-control ordinance," Debnam said Sept. 19. "We feel it's easier to educate 30 people (grading contractors) than 30,000 people (property owners)."

Debnam also said during that meeting that big grading jobs were not damaging the creeks; rather, small sites where people don't apply for permits create a majority of the problems.

Building inspections director John Wittekind and McCall, also present at the Sept. 19 commissioners' meeting, disagreed with Debnam and the planning board members, saying a move to hold contractors responsible for grading violations would interfere with the financial relationship between the landowner and grader.

Discussion of the sediment-control ordinance again dominated the commissioners' Oct. 17 session.

Dillsboro property owners Betty Bradley and Rusty Rhymer asked commissioners to explain why Debnam, who was cited in March for violating the sediment control ordinance, was not fined. They also questioned his position as chairman of the planning board.

Debnam's penalty was waived, commissioners said, because a fee schedule for the ordinance was not in place at the time of Debnam's violation.

Fines were also waived Oct. 17 for Cooper, who admitted he had violated the county ordinance by not filing a sediment-control plan for his development off U.S. 441.

Also at that meeting, developer Ken Solomon, whose Cullowhee Mountain site remained in violation of the ordinance, was given 30 days to make improvements.

Back to Archive: 10/31/02.