Megasite skeptics remain despite site restrictions

Questions about the proposed Great Meadows Megasite have abounded since the project was first announced last fall. At times, answers have been scarce.

Burke County and Burke Development Inc. provided plenty of them Tuesday night.

County Manager Brian Epley laid out the plans and restrictions for conditional rezoning of the massive industrial site in western Burke County during a public forum that included a lengthy question-and-answer period.

Although some in the nearly full commission boardroom expressed their disapproval of the project, the tone was civil and mostly free from emotional or argumentative outbursts.

Questions ran the gamut, from the potential environmental impacts of the site, to its effect on property values, to the height of buildings that may eventually be built there.

Most answers reflected what seemed to be a genuine desire on the part of BDI and the county to exercise caution where future development of the site is concerned.

“There has been a lot of hard work, and their voices have been heard, they’ve been considered, and it really matters to us,” Epley said afterward. “We think that there’s a right way to do things and we’re committed to that.”

Not everyone was satisfied with every answer, but Burke Board of Commissioners Chairman Jeff Brittain said the meeting was an important step in the process, which could result in a massive and transformational influx of jobs and tax revenue for the county.

“I think it gave us a good opportunity to explain where we’ve been,” Brittain said. “I think it showed our folks that we always had the intent to do the right thing. I think this demonstrated that we want to do that, and at the same time, to make some progress for our folks that are in desperate economic need.”

Epley and a panel that included Brittain, BDI President and CEO Alan Wood, Western Piedmont Community College President Dr. Joel Welch, and representatives from conservation groups Foothills Conservancy, Lake James Environmental Association, and Catawba Riverkeeper listened and provided a veritable mountain of information.

A list of restrictions for development of the land provided answers to some of the most long-awaited inquiries. The commissioners voted earlier this year to reinstate conditional zoning, which is typically used to impose tighter regulations on industrial developments, for the first time in three years.

As a result, any future tenant of the megasite property would have to comply with restrictions much tougher than those required by the state.

Included in the regulations are 75-foot stream buffers, three times larger than the state mandates; and an average stream buffer of at least 150 feet for the entire site, six times the state requirement.

Perimeter buffers of existing trees and vegetation would be no smaller than 150 feet, and most of them would have to be 200 or 300 feet – “literally a football field,” Epley said.

North Carolina law says such buffers must be at least 10 feet.

Among the outlawed uses for the site are mining and quarry operations, raw ore or mineral processing facilities, landfills, scrap yards, and carbon black production.

Opponents of the site fear the future tenant might be a lithium-ion battery manufacturer, and some were distressed that industry wasn’t listed specifically among the restricted uses.

Many of the restrictions in Epley’s presentation were heavily influenced by a report the three environmental nonprofits represented at Tuesday’s meeting released in February.

Tom Kenney, Foothills Conservancy Land Protection Director, said the forum was constructive for those on both sides of the issue.

“Not everybody feels the same way about it,” Kenney said. “But I think what we hope, that by participating in discussions, you have a voice at the table to try and influence decisions made, and they’ll have to think of the entire county.”

A few remained unconvinced their voices were being heard.

“I think it was kind of a duplication of what Epley had said prior, trying to get everybody on board with it,” said Joanna Kentch, who has been vocal in her opposition to the site throughout most of the process. “But I think now, most people know and are not buying into the Kool-Aid.”

The site, which comprises 1,353 acres split into 13 parcels and straddles the border with McDowell County near the Dysartsville Road exit of I-40, was hailed as a “game-changer” by state and local officials when the General Assembly approved a $36 million appropriation for its purchase and infrastructure installment last October.

Sections of the land must be rezoned Industrial in order for the sale to be completed. A request to rezone more than 1,000 acres was to have come before the county’s planning board last December, but was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

The new request, made by BDI on behalf of property owners Great Meadows LLC, reduces the amount of land to 795 acres. Several sizable tracts will not be developed, and possible trail connectors will be preserved.

Wood and Brittain confirmed last week the zoning restrictions would apply to any industry that occupies the site in the future. No specific clients have been named.

Future versions of the board of commissioners could reverse the restrictions since zoning is a legislative act, but Epley said in his opinion that would be highly unlikely to ever happen.

Epley added facts like those are important for folks to know.

“Our goal was to share all the information we have and make sure that we have considered all questions and concerns,” Epley said. “The only goal coming in was to provide that and to earn credibility, and I hope that we accomplished it.”

The rezoning request will likely come before the planning board at its next meeting Thursday, Aug. 22, at 5:30 p.m.

The planning board, which serves in an advisory capacity, can recommend the measure or reject it, but the Burke Board of Commissioners will have the final say on the matter. That vote would likely take place at the Sept. 17 meeting.