Conditional rezoning for the proposed Great Meadows industrial megasite is headed to the Burke County Commissioners for decision with the blessing of the county’s planning board.
A lengthy meeting Thursday featured a long parade of speakers during the public comments portion and culminated in a 3-1 vote, with one member abstaining, in favor of recommending Burke Development’s request to rezone 746 acres of the site to Industrial Conditional Rezoning (IND-CD-01).
Board Chair Joyce Counihan and members Andrew Lowdermilk and Brian King — who introduced the motion — voted in favor of rezoning under a long list of restrictive measures developed by the county in conjunction with Burke’s three principal environmental nonprofits.
Board member Richard Evey voted against the measure, and Sara Chester abstained. King’s motion also included a proposal to amend the county’s 2022 Blueprint Burke strategic land use plan to reflect a desire to convert portions of the site north of U.S. 70 to residential infill zoning in the future.
The planning board serves in an advisory capacity only, so the rezoning request must be separately approved by the Board of Commissioners. Deputy County Manager Alan Glines said Thursday night the item would likely appear on the agenda for the board’s next meeting Tuesday, Sept. 17. That meeting would include a required public hearing.
Burke Development Inc. (BDI) President and CEO Alan Wood presented the request on behalf of the owners of the land, Great Meadows, LLC, a Spruce Pine-based company.
The county hopes to purchase the land, a total of 1,353 acres spread across 14 parcels, from Great Meadows, touting the site as a generational opportunity to attract a major industry to the area. But before that can happen, all the developable tracts must be rezoned. Some portions were already designated as Industrial and have been for decades, Wood said.
Two of the parcels would have their scenic overlays removed. Those overlays deal mostly with the exterior appearance of non-residential buildings allowed in a given zone, Glines explained, saying buffers would function largely as overlays.
“You’re probably never going to see the development of this site from the highway,” Glines said.
More than a dozen speakers addressed the board Thursday, with many of them expressing their opposition to the site. Opponents have cited fears a lithium-ion battery manufacturer is being recruited to occupy the megasite, although no potential industry has been announced.
Carla Adams inherited a house in the area from her parents and is concerned about the site.
“I do not want a factory in my backyard,” Adams said. “I don’t think you would.”
Mary Stevens lives near U.S. 70 and worries runoff from a factory might pollute Muddy Creek and the Catawba River.
“We moved here from central Florida, south of Orlando, to live in the country,” Stevens said. “We did not move from the city to the country to have the water polluted.”
The county responded to public fears by re-introducing conditional zoning and then coming up with a laundry list of conditions any future occupant of the site must follow.
The riparian and perimeter buffers placed on the site far exceed the state’s minimum requirements, all lighting on the site must be downward facing to eliminate light pollution, and roadway entrances to the interior of the site would be limited.
The largest tract comprises almost 551 acres. The other four included in the proposal range in size from ⅔ of an acre to nearly 167. Glines pointed out as many as 200 acres of the largest parcel would end up being a natural buffer zone, adding the zoning restrictions the county is seeking would be Burke County’s most restrictive.
The property is currently forested, having been logged last in the 1980s. Those trees are reaching maturity, and Glines pointed out the property owners could choose to log the area at any time. Under conditional zoning, that wouldn’t happen.
That was good enough for Bill Poteat, who lives on Snowhill Church Road, which borders the site.
“I like what they’re doing for the protections … I do totally support this,” Poteat said.
Editor’s note: The Bill Poteat quoted in this story is not The Paper’s editor emeritus.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.