Asheville City Council approved the controversial stormwater ordinance, with some modifications. The buffer width was reduced from 50′ to 30′, and the document was sent back to staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission for further technical review. In addition, a budget amendment was passed to hire six people to help with administering the plan.
Asheville had missed the July 1 deadline the state had required for adoption of a new stormwater ordinance. The city had been working on an open process with public participation, and staff did not want to cut the process short.
The problem was, the public that was involved was a small group of stakeholders that largely leaned more in support of environmental preservation than property rights. Many who showed up to express their dissatisfaction with the ordinance, complained that the public had not received adequate forewarning.
Twenty people spoke on behalf of “eroding” property rights, whereas another five advocated the “property rights” of those who live downstream, including rare and endangered species.
Homeowners pled for the right to have access to use their property as they wished, without the devaluation imposed by government restrictions. They said it was robbery for goverment to essentially seize their lands and make them continue to pay the same taxes.
The Chamber of Commerce sent a representative to object to the ordinance’s over-regulation. The weekly or biweekly inspections that would have to be conducted by a licensed engineer would cost $500 to $1000 each. Having to grade large tracts 5 acres at a time could increase project costs 40-50%. Additional requirements for stamped drawings at various stages of the game kept the cost of developing prohibitive.
A lawyer hired by the Council of Independent Business Owners said the document was flawed. It took her half an hour to find out which parts of the ordinance pertained to stormwater runoff and which pertained to erosion control. The exemptions listed were not clearly labeled as pertaining to one category or another. The document used its own set of definitions, which conflicted with definitions used by the state in stormwater issues. Overall, the document needed to be remanded to tighten up the carelessness in the wording.
Nobody spoke against the dictatorial powers to be given to the Stormwater Administrator. From some perspectives, the 50′ buffer appeared only to be the sticker price for a bad ordinance that was perfectly capable of eroding property rights with a 30′ buffer.
