<< Back 8/7/02 Strengthened watershed rules supported at hearing By Beth Seay About 60 people appeared at the second public hearing Macon County held to consider amendments to its watershed ordinance. The second hearing was necessary after changes were made to the original proposal. The amendments would protect the Little Tennessee River between the Lake Emory dam and the Swain County line. The Macon County Watershed Council began consideration of the amendments in April following a request in August 2001 by a developer to build an RV park near Iotla Bridge, which would include a point-source discharge of treated sewage into the river. The amendments proposed in June suggested limiting construction density to two dwellings per acre and limiting impervious surfaces (such as roofs and paved drives) to 12 percent of the total acreage. It also included a new watershed designation for “excellent quality water” – WS-EQW. The amendments brought before the Board Monday includes the WS-EQW proposal and still suggests limiting construction density to two single-family dwellings per acre. Other residential and non-residential development would be allowed a maximum of 18 percent built-upon area. It also allows for “non-residential uses” to occupy 10 percent of the watershed with a 70 percent built-upon area as a “special non-residential intensity allocation” (SNIA). Of the nearly 60 people who appeared at Monday’s hearing, 27 spoke and more than 20 were in favor of the amendment. Bob Wright said that the “changes proposed are minimal to protect the Little Tennessee River below Lake Emory,” and added that the amendment has “overwhelming public support.” John Parrish said he grew up on the river when outhouses on the banks and a nearby slaughterhouse dumped “guts and blood” into the river. He said his family ate fish out of the river, “and I’m still alive.” He said he believed the proposed amendments would be “another infringement on property owner’s rights” and said the ordinance would be a form of “communism.” Aquatic biologist Bill McLarney said he had favored the amendment in its “previous, stronger form,” but that he “recognized the fact that you people are far more aware of what doesn’t work in the political process here in the county than I am.” “I think what we are looking at here is a rapidly growing county where things have to be managed differently than if we were tiny and not growing ... I think what we’re looking at is perhaps a battle for the soul of Macon County, and I think you are on the verge of making the right decision.”