Since April, they have rallied their friends, talked up the issue at community meetings, and sent messages via email, Nextdoor, and Facebook. They sent letters to the commissioners on pros and cons of making regulatory changes that would affect the rivers that run through Macon Country.
Finally, at 6 p.m. on a hot, clear Tuesday evening shortly after celebrating Independence Day, Macon County residents came to have their formal say, face to face, with their elected representatives. Well over 100 people assembled at the July 9 Macon County Board of County Commissioners meeting; many were there to express comments on changes to three ordinances: Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Watershed Protection, and Flood Damage Prevention.
Earlier this year, Commissioner Josh Young proposed revisions to the existing ordinances, scoping back more restrictive requirements created by the county between 2021 and 2022 to ease regulatory burdens on landowners. Amendments to the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance would revise the land-disturbing activity that requires a permit from a half-acre to one acre.
Amendments to the Watershed Protection Ordinance would remove the prohibition of Recreational Vehicle Parks as a non-permissible use in a Special Non-residential Intensity Allocation. The proposed changes to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance are more extensive and complicated.
In summary, the amendments would allow limited fill and development within the flood fringe or flood plain not in the floodway, provided that such fill is not more than 25% of the total of the flood fringe area contained in each parcel. If fill is planned to exceed 25% of the flood fringe area, landowners would have to present a Certification of No Adverse Impact from a North Carolina licensed civil engineer with their application for a variance.
With their three minutes of allotted time, local residents held up pictures of potentially impacted areas and wildlife, presented diagrams, asked hard questions, read from statements, or spoke from the heart. Of the 35 speakers, not one advocated for Macon County to agree to the proposed edits to the existing ordinances. Even if someone agreed tweaks could be made for limited, small-scale projects by local farmers or homeowners, the majority requested commissioners return the ordinances to the subcommittee for additional review by hydrologists, civil engineers, and environmental experts.
Looking out at the large turnout, Chairman Gary Shields addressed the crowd with a heartfelt, “Thank you for taking part in this democracy.”
Shields lauded the civility and point-by-point reviews of the ordinances that commissioners had received from constituents. The civility broke down a few times as residents interrupted commissioners, prompting Shields to admonish the crowd to let everyone, including their elected representatives, have their say. Overall, the spirit of the lengthy meeting was one that demonstrated the power of showing up.
Alex Haiss, a rising junior at UNC-Chapel Hill, who grew up in Macon and Swain counties, presented a petition with 292 signatures that he and Western Carolina University student Garrett McCarson had circulated. The petition read, “We urge you to stop, think, and consult with experts before making any irreversible changes to our floodplain ordinance.”
Haiss has since reported via a post-meeting telephone interview that the number of signatures had risen to 330.
“If you’re my age, there are three decisions being made that could negatively affect our quality of life [going forward.] Before this, I had no knowledge of or interest in local politics. Sometimes you need a wake-up call like this to get involved,” said Haiss.
Why so much hubbub?
Commissioner Young raised concerns about excessive regulations and the ability of the county to allow landowners to make decisions on property use. Young shared in writing to Macon Sense on the churn these proposals have created.
“When I was first contacted about this issue, it just didn’t seem right that Macon County had the strictest floodplain ordinance in the State of North Carolina. N.C. statute allows fill to be placed in the floodplain, and generally speaking, most counties and municipal districts follow the State Ordinance (including the town of Franklin and town of Highlands). As this started to evolve, I had interest in following suit as well. After much discussion, listening and understanding both sides of the argument, I find it fair to say we are presenting a compromise. As the subcommittee met, we discussed and properly vetted our proposals through the State of North Carolina. We have decided to take a baby step towards a compromise. Instead of following state laws and allowing 100% fill in the floodplain, we are proposing 25%.”
He added, “I feel like this is going to allow people to access, restore, and use properties as desired without mass fill. I feel like if this is such a major and dangerous issue, the state of N.C. would not permit such acts.”
Lee Walters, a planning board member speaking in a personal capacity, narrowed in on potential implications of the proposed language in the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance during the July 9 meeting. Walters challenged the proposed edits because, “It has nothing to do with the volume of the fill. It’s only referencing the surface area.”
“I don’t think this is your intent,” motioned Walters, as he showed an illustration with a hypothetical construction project to commissioners. “But this is how this ordinance can be abused.”
Regarding the new Adverse Impact requirements, Walters stated firmly, “Fill displacement has a mathematical reality. Everything you do has an impact. Period.”
Lewis Penland, who has worked on river restoration projects since 2014, picked apart other omissions with the existing and proposed ordinance language. Penland asked why fill dirt could currently be added to the floodway, how titling would be addressed if properties were combined, and if floodplain maps would be revised each time variances were approved. He also broached the issue of encroachment on neighbors’ properties if the floodplain lines change with each fill permit.
Betsy Baiste, Otto resident and freshwater environmental educator, raised concerns about changes to the Watershed Protection Ordinance. She said: “Why in the world would you want to change something that is protecting this amazing beautiful county that we love?”
Sarah Johnson, local environmental educator, illustrating potential impact to the Spotfin chub species of fish, said, “We’ve got a very high level of biodiversity in our fresh waters. It is worth protecting.”
If there were any issues all agreed on during the meeting, it was that Macon County needed to protect farmland whenever possible and to address chronic issues of enforcement. Part of that job will now fall to Caleb Gibson, who was appointed as the new Planning, Permitting, and Development Ordinance Administrator during the meeting.
“Baptism by fire,” remarked County Manager Derek Roland as Gibson’s credentials were provided to commissioners.
Noting the complexity of the issues involved, Commissioner Danny Antoine rounded out the session.
“I am not in favor of government or any other entity telling landowners what they can or cannot do on their own land,” he said. “However, I also believe … you should do your best to be a good neighbor and not be a nuisance or a danger to your neighbors. After hearing you all and learning so much from you, I’m currently for keeping these ordinances as they are with no changes.”
Antoine noted the commissioners could revisit the ordinances with more information and preparation if needed in the future.
Because Shields proposed early in the session to break up the ordinance votes over the next three months, up or down votes are still expected at future Macon County Board of Commissioners’ meetings. Soil Erosion will now be addressed on Aug. 13, the Watershed issue on Sept. 10, and Flood Damage Prevention on Oct. 8.