Ten out of 12 speakers at Monday night’s public hearing regarding Macon County’s proposed high-impact use ordinance lobbied commissioners not just to pass the ordinance, but to let it be a first step toward developing additional growth controls.

Citing the 1992 failure to implement a county-wide land-use plan, Cullasaja residents Bill and Sharon VanHorn said that the time had long since passed to do something about development issues.

“Can we really afford to wait another 13 years?” Bill VanHorn asked. “We submit that we cannot wait another 13 months before we take control of what is happening in our beautiful county.”

In addition to the high-impact uses addressed in the ordinance — uses including asphalt plants, chip mills and racetracks — the VanHorns proposed regulation for trailer disposal, junk cars, stray pets and noise. Such issues were purposefully excluded from the high-impact ordinance because planning board members felt they could be too controversial and might need to be dealt with on an individual basis.

The ordinance is primarily a collection of setbacks and buffers that will be required of high-impact businesses (to view the ordinance, got to maconnc.org and scroll to the planning department section).

Cowee resident Faye Moore cited large-scale residential sites such the new 1,500-acre Wildflower development as another high-impact use that is not addressed by the ordinance.

Calling such development “widespread planned devastation of the mountains,” Moore asked for ridgeline protections and limitations on what can go into a development.

“When you talk about purple mountains majesty, I don’t think it was ever meant to be plundered by the highest bidder,” Moore said.

Proponents and opponents of the ordinance seemed to agree that its language is not terribly restrictive.

“I’m very disappointed with this ordinance because it does very little to prevent these uses from being in our valley,” said Kenneth McKinney, a Cowee resident.

“Personally, from my standpoint, it’s rather benign. It’s not earthshaking,” said Alan Allman. “But by the same token I get the feeling, and I think I’m reading it correctly, and I think you should too, it’s a small encroachment on personal property rights.”

Personal property rights are more sacred than others, Allman said.

“An individual right trumps society and community rights,” he said.

Allman argued that while the ordinance’s language is not preventative, its objective is to impose “land use control.” Planning, he said, is just a politically correct term the public has come to accept.

Planning board member Susan Ervin answered that the while the ordinance was “a work of great compromise,” it’s intent was no mystery.

“I want to say very bluntly, I definitely see it as a first step toward zoning,” Ervin said.

Macon County commissioners are expected to vote on the ordinance at their regular board meeting, which has been rescheduled due to the Labor Day holiday. The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. Sept. 12 in the commissioners’ board room.