Go to the homepage for the Sylva Herald and Ruralite

County leaders review proposal to control erosion, sediment

By Lisa Majors-Duff
Those for and against the county's proposed sediment control ordinance met with commissioners last week to go over the document, section by section.

The majority of the county's proposal to control erosion and sedimentation from polluting water sources and other public and private property is based on a law administered by the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The need for a local law, said county planning board Chairman Dean Coward, has become more prevalent as the area becomes more populated and state manpower to enforce its regulations becomes more thinly stretched.

An area of the proposal receiving the most attention at last week's work session deals with a requirement of those constructing single- and two-family dwellings, but not disturbing an acre of land, to notify the county of the building plans and receive information on how to control runoff. The proposal indicates no fee would be charged under this provision, which is labeled 411. As the state law now requires, only those who unearth an acre or more are required to notify authorities and receive a permit, which is accessed a fee.

This provision should apply to "any land disturbing activity," commission Chairman Jay Denton said during the discussion. "All we are asking here is that people understand the law and know what to do with sediment control."

Mike Goodson, an employee with the DENR's land quality division, said single- and two-family dwellings were spelled out in the provision because the majority of problems with sediment are caused by this type of construction.

But, said Commissioner Stacy Buchanan, limiting the provision to residential construction would exclude commercial development from notifying the county when less than an acre of land is disturbed.

"Do you want to stop 80 percent of (erosion) or do you want to stop all of it?" he asked.

Whether residential or commercial construction is provided for in the notification section, everyone needs to know that state law requires landowners to keep their dirt on their property, said planning board member Phil Gibson.

"What (section) 411 does is let people know that the state law exists and gives them the heads up to a possible violation," Gibson said.

Those opposed to the proposed ordinance, including section 411, say the document represents a duplication of laws and more delays for builders.

"There are those on the planning board who disagree with the proposed ordinance in general and this section 411 in particular," planning board member Steve Foster said. "That section applies to single-family residential dwellings and is unfair to our young people. With over 50 percent of all new housing in our county being manufactured units, it will adversely effect local young people who are trying to get started in life.

"Certainly clean water and clean air are important issues to consider, but the most valuable resource in Jackson County is our young people," Foster continued. "We should do all we can to insure that they can grow up and afford to live in Jackson County. Section 411 will only add more cost and obstacles to that process."

Chairman Denton disagreed with Foster's assessment, pointing out that the intent of 411 is education and that several avenues exist within county government to assist those planning a house site. He likened the section to current laws regulating brush burning, which require a permit, at which time educational material is provided to the applicant and information is collected.

"I'm concerned about some things in this ordinance simply because of the way things get done," said Larry Moss, a member of the subcommittee that drafted the proposed ordinance. "My biggest concern is with fairness. How will we see that this is done fairly and that big money doesn't rule the day?"

"No member of the (commission) wants to be unfair," Denton responded. "We are obligated to be fair, and I can't tell you any more than that."

Fairness is a major reason for a local ordinance, said William Shelton, another member of the subcommittee, to address the many people who "are falling through the cracks. We need to deal with a local problem with a local solution."

Back to Archive: 05/11/00.