Macon County residents urge board to retain strict erosion, watershed and floodplain rules

Chairman Shields opened public hearings July 9 on three proposed amendments that would change local rules governing soil erosion, watershed protection and floodplain fill. County Planner Caleb Gibson told the board the soil-erosion revision would raise the land-disturbance threshold requiring a professional sediment-and-erosion-control plan from a half-acre to one acre; he said the state standard is one acre and the Planning Board recommended the change.

Dozens of residents, farmers and conservation advocates urged the commission to retain the current, stricter rules. “We have all seen muddy waters in the area,” said Sarah Johnson, who told the board protected species and downstream properties could be harmed if controls were loosened. Kelly Moore, speaking for Mountain True, asked the board to “leave the ordinance as it is,” and Jordan Smith of Mainspring Conservation Trust warned that weakening the floodplain rules would “damage properties downstream.”

Commissioners debated enforcement and local capacity. Commissioner Shearl suggested stronger permitting and stiffer fines where violations occur; Commissioner Higdon said enforcement resources are limited and questioned how Planner Caleb Gibson could oversee multiple ordinances without staff assistance. Commissioner Shields moved, and Commissioner Antoine seconded, to table the soil-erosion amendment to the August meeting; the motion passed 3-2, with Commissioners Shields, Antoine and Higdon voting in favor and Commissioners Young and Shearl opposed.

On the watershed proposal—which would permit RV parks to obtain a non-residential specialty allocation—speakers raised similar concerns about septic systems, loss of agricultural land and cumulative impacts on riverbanks. The board voted to table the watershed amendment to the September meeting, 3-2. On the floodplain amendment (which would allow up to 25% fill in the flood fringe and require a No Adverse Impact certification for larger changes), residents and a practicing engineer spoke of cumulative effects and emergency-service impacts; the board tabled that item to the October regular meeting by unanimous vote.

Next steps: the board left all three proposals open for further review and public input. Commissioners and presenters repeatedly asked for more technical review and clearer enforcement plans before any ordinance change is adopted.