Last week’s County Commission vote approving the Palisades development didn’t put an end to this long and contentious issue. There are still many crucial details to be worked out, and the battles seem far from over. When commissioners voted 8-1 in favor of the 1,500-acre golf course development near the shores of Lake Wylie, they did so just a week after the zoning committee had recommended denying the Crescent Resources/Robert C. Rhein Interest proposal. What caused such a big turnaround? According to Alan Giles, communication coordinator for the Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection, developers made two major concessions involving how water quality is tested and, if problems arise, how they are corrected. Although environmentalists and the county had previously asked for these safeguards, developers had resisted — until the zoning committee made the unusual move of unanimously denying the developer’s petition. As part of this newly agreed-upon plan, developers will conduct water quality modeling before any ground is broken. Essentially, this is a computer program that collects data and predicts what kind of impact different types of development will have on water quality. The program then recommends how development should take shape, and what measures would best protect the water. The other component of the plan involves water quality monitoring. Developers agreed that if water quality monitoring shows that the lake is not being adequately protected, they would take the necessary steps to correct the problem.
Mary C. Hopper, Chairperson of the Planning Commission (which is comprised of the zoning and planning committees) said that, for the most part, she’s satisfied with the changes developers made, but adds that it was a hard-fought battle.
“We had asked the petitioners to show us a link between water quality and land development,” Hopper said. “In other words, if something negative happened in the water, there would be a change with the land. When they came before us for the final zoning committee vote, they still weren’t there. We asked them point blank, ‘Is this the best you can do?’ And we were told, ‘Yes, it is.’ So we turned it down. They were flabbergasted. I think our vote served as a wake-up call that we were serious, and it forced them to the negotiating table.”
Whatever the motivation, developers did make some changes and a revised plan was submitted to the county commissioners. Normally, if changes in zoning requests are substantial, the petitioner must appear before the zoning committee again, a process which takes 30 days. However, there is a county policy that allows the Board of County Commissioners to proceed without referring the matter back to the zoning committee, provided three-fourths of the board agrees to do so, which is what happened in this case.
Hopper says that although the process was rushed and the zoning committee never took an official vote on the plan’s final draft, she feels the developers made a good faith effort to address their concerns.
“All during this process, things were happening very quickly,” Hopper said. “People were scrambling. That isn’t the best way for things to happen, but it’s not unusual. I still think we did the right thing by the system. Since we didn’t get to vote on it again I can’t say for sure, but in talking privately with the members of the Planning Commission, I feel most were comfortable with (the final plan). The developers have done more than anyone else has. I think they genuinely want to be careful about water quality, but if it’s not written into a conditional plan it won’t happen.”
Commissioner Darrel Williams, one of the more skeptical commission members concerning The Palisades, said he ultimately voted in favor of the project because it was better than the alternative.
“If we could have gotten five votes to stop development that would have been fine, but realistically that wasn’t going to happen,” he opined. “So what’s the next best thing we can do to protect the water quality? Without this plan, developers could have built even more housing units without the environmental safeguards.” Williams said he has asked the county staff to come up with a plan of how to enforce all the environmental safeguards that were agreed upon. “It’s so easy to agree on these things, but as the project proceeds, people just forget. I want to have a plan in place to ensure we protect the water, and the developers do everything they promised.”
Commissioner Bill James, a longtime supporter of The Palisades, let us know his views on the subject via this charming email sent the morning after the County Commission vote:
“See…………….the votes to pass were there ALL along. We were NEVER going to allow the City Council to have control over this. In fact, the County Commission is ‘sick and tired’ of the City whining and carping about how they are smarter, better, and more able to control issues than we are.
“What you are seeing is a decision on the part of the majority to stand up to the City Council and other interests,” James’ e-mail continued. “Of course, most of the Commissioners don’t want to talk about it but this is the undercurrent that exists on these things and ‘one’ of many reasons Palisades passed. The Palisades is a good deal for Mecklenburg County and I make no apologies for voting for it. . .The votes to pass this were a done deal regardless of the media attention.”
Environmentalists Disagree
While many feel the safeguards that were ultimately agreed upon adequately protect the environment and water quality, others see approval of The Palisades as just the latest example of political games in which big money developers get what they want. After having presented a united front for a long time, this basic conflict surfaced even within the environmental community.
“I think a lot more is being made about this agreement than it warrants,” said John Byrd, a member of the Lower Lake Wylie Association, one of the more outspoken opponents of The Palisades. “It really disturbs me how some environmental groups are jumping on the county bandwagon. I hardly consider this a victory. The agreement has way too many loopholes. But I guess you have to celebrate anything you get in this town if you’re an environmentalist.”
Byrd’s main objections to the agreement have to do with the procedures used in setting and meeting water quality “targets,” and the assertion that there will be zero impact on the lake. Water quality targets are set through the use of the before-mentioned computer program. It analyzes and measures the current water quality — the “target” — and then determines what level of impact from pollutants is acceptable.
“People who are going around telling folks that there will be zero impact are just wrong,” Byrd says. “There will be significant impact.”
Catawba Riverkeeper Donna Lisenby says that because the agreement states that the existing water quality will be used as a target, developers have a zero-impact benchmark they have to meet. “Byrd just doesn’t understand the science,” Lisenby said.
Byrd is also upset over what he says was a planned joint lawsuit involving the Catawba River Foundation and the Sierra Club against the developers if The Palisades vote passed. “They were pressing us (Lower Lake Wylie Association) to file suit if we lost the vote, and they promised to join us. But now that the decision has been made, where are they? I’ve been asking for days if they’re going to join us and there’s been no answer.”
While Lisenby sees more positives in The Palisades’ final plan than Byrd, she concedes that she views the outcome more as the lesser of two evils rather than a victory.
“All along we’ve been between the devil and the deep blue sea on this project,” she said. “But we did get precedent-setting water quality protections written into the conditional rezoning notes that didn’t exist before. Anything we could get to protect water quality as a result of the negotiated conditional rezoning is better than if the land was developed with the existing zoning.”
Sierra Club conservation chair Rick Roti said that while he feels the developers did make some significant and meaningful changes, the crucial part of the plan has yet to begin. “The key is really in the details and making sure the developer follows the rules that have been laid out, and that they act rapidly to correct any water quality problems that might arise.”
Lisenby also stresses that now that the project has been approved, the real environmental work must begin.
“This is like the third inning of a nine-inning ballgame,” she said. “There needs to be a lot of attention paid to the water quality monitoring and the collection of data. The county is going to have to stand firm — if the water quality tests indicate that the developers have to reduce density and change the design of the project to meet the water protection targets, the commissioners will have to make sure that gets done.”
Another sticking point for some critics is that the developers – Crescent Resources and Rhein Interests — could get Duke Power to administer the various water quality tests using their own proprietary model. Crescent is a subsidiary of Duke Energy, both of which have been heavily criticized, particularly during The Palisades saga, as being responsible for polluting the Catawba River through ill-conceived lakeside developments.
Giles, of the County Department of Environmental Protection, said the developers will perform the ambient water quality monitoring, and that the Environmental Protection Department will evaluate and approve all monitoring site locations as well as monitoring protocol. Giles added that the developers could hire Duke Power to perform the storm water monitoring, and in fact have expressed interest in doing so.
Lisenby — a longtime critic of Duke Power and Crescent — says the EPA has determined that the Duke Power water quality testing procedures are not a good model to use in Mecklenburg County. She added that members of the Catawba River Foundation have their own water samples from the Lake Wylie coves, so they’ll be able to compare their data with any that is produced during the developer’s upcoming tests, regardless of who performs them.
Contact Sam Boykin at (704) 889-7398 or sam.boykin@cln.com. *
This article appears in Dec 19-25, 2001.
