County investigates measures to curb soil sediment problems

By Lynn Hotaling

While planning board members present voiced support for amending the 2-year-old sediment control ordinance to hold contractors responsible for damaging runoff caused by any size land disturbance, building inspections director John Wittekind and ordinance administrator Jeff McCall said such a move would interfere with the financial relationship between the landowner and grader.

"We feel we are missing the boat with our erosion control ordinance," planning board Chairman Jack Debnam said. "We feel it's easier to educate 30 people than 30,000 people."

Debnam went on to explain that "big grading jobs are not damaging the creeks. It's the small sites where people are not applying for permits that are creating a majority of the problems."

The county's sediment control ordinance, which was adopted in July 2000 and took affect in November of that year, requires a landowner or financially-responsible party to apply for and pay for a permit if they plan to disturb an acre or more of land in the building process.

Notification to the building inspections office is required by anyone disturbing less than an acre, although no fee is assessed. Instead, notification is required to ensure landowners receive information about ways to prevent damaging runoff.

Penalties, including fines of up to $5,000, may be assessed ordinance violators, who are defined as "the developer or other person who has or holds himself out as having financial or operational control over the land-disturbing activity or landowner or person in possession or control of the land..."

"We, the planning board, feel if we could fine the contractor, we'd get a lot more compliance," Debnam said. "A lot of contractors are thumbing their noses at us."

"The person who is paying the bill is in charge," McCall countered. "The contractor is going to do what he's paid to do."

"You may alleviate some problems, but you may create more problems," Wittekind said, indicating the issue of assigning blame between the landowner and the grading contractor when problems arise. "Making the ordinance more complex will end up defeating what we set out to do."

Planning board members received the assignment of creating local legislation addressing soil sediment control from the board of commissioners, who identified runoff as a major pollutant to area streams and rivers. The draft ordinance, which mirrored state regulations with regard to sediment control, was presented to county leaders in April 2000.

The document failed to be adopted upon its first reading, when two members voted against an amendment calling for the permit trigger to be set at 1/2 acre of disturbance instead of 1 acre. That issue was resolved when state officials indicated a half-acre requirement would be too burdensome to enforce.

None of the 19 Western North Carolina counties with local sediment regulations he supervises holds grading contractors responsible for environmentally-damaging runoff, said Richard Phillips of the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

"The state's usual response is to hold the financially-responsible person accountable," said Phillips, who went on to say that nothing would prevent language being added at the local level calling for fines against contractors who violate the ordinance.

In fact, the city of Charlotte in June amended its soil sediment control ordinance to include contractors responsible for supervising grading work, according to information supplied by county planning director Tamera Crisp.

"We, as a board, think contractors are better educated than the homeowner to do the right thing," Debnam said. "We think they would be just as accountable as the homeowner; they are the ones doing the work.

"Every other contractor is held to some level of accountablility; the grading people are the only ones who are not," he said.

The ordinance as written is getting the job done, Wittekind said.

"After this local program was put in place, I've seen more places doing more to stop erosion than ever before," he said. "I'm for educating the contractors, but I'm against holding them financially responsible by setting up 10 levels of bureaucracy to cover what is already in place."

Should a landowner feel he has been wronged by a grading contractor, he has at least two means of addressing the issue, Wittekind said. He can either not pay the contractor or he can take him to court to collect damages.

"We need to keep on the landowners who are doing this," he said. "As a few more landowners get penalized, the word will get around pretty quick."

In addition to a suggestion that grading contractors be permitted before working in Jackson County or be required to attend certification classes, those present agreed to scheduled a work session to receive further input from those in the business.

"I don't see us doing that before the first of October," Debnam said Tuesday.

Back to Archive: 09/26/02.