Community activists who oppose the Chesterfield "mega site" plan cheered the Economic Development Authority's announcement Thursday. (Photo by Sarah King)
Just two weeks ago, during a private meeting of residents opposed to Chesterfield County’s Matoaca mega site, real estate agent and group leader Mike Uzel made a plea to the members of the Bermuda Advocates for Responsible Development (BARD).
“A lot of people have asked me, ‘Mike, don’t you think this is a done deal?’ ” Uzel posed rhetorically. “And my answer is ‘no.’ ”
Uzel was referring to the group’s goal, since August 2017, to grind to a halt the county Economic Development Authority’s application to rezone about 1,700 acres of residential property in the Bermuda District to heavy industrial use for the eventual build-out of the “Matoaca mega site” for an unidentified end user. The EDA proposed buying the property west of Interstate 95 and south of Iron Bridge Road in an effort to attract a manufacturer such as an automotive or aerospace company. It would have forced some residents to sell their property and leave their homes.
Then, Uzel’s typically mild tone took a sharp turn: “I refuse to believe this is a done deal. We must keep fighting and we must keep moving forward. We cannot slow down our momentum — we have to continue to do everything we can to make our voices and our community voices heard.”
On Thursday, the group’s efforts were realized during a special meeting of the EDA. After nearly an hourlong closed session, the authority announced its withdrawal of the application to rezone the would-be mega site property, citing in a prepared statement "the need for greater community consensus and changes to the zoning ordinance prior to moving forward with development of the site."
The announcement follows multiple rallies outside Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors meetings, hundreds of public comments by community members in opposition to the plan, meetings by BARD members with planning commissioners and other county administrators, Freedom of information Act requests and transcribed videos, analysis of publicly available documents and an approach consisting of strict scrutiny and unyielding due diligence.
These prolonged grassroots efforts were amplified last week when Del. Kirk Cox, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates and representative for part of Chesterfield County, state Sen. Amanda Chase (who also represents part of Chesterfield) and county Board of Supervisors member Chris Winslow all stated publicly their opposition to the proposal, as well.
“This project is alarming to a lot of folks, and as the EDA, I don't think we've undertaken anything we haven't been encouraged to do by the Board of Supervisors,” authority member Terri Cofer Beirne said after the board announced the application withdrawal. “This is a unique property, and I think the development pressure on it is tremendous and it's going to affect a lot of people's lives whether we own it or somebody else owns it.”
But, Beirne said, “There are too many unanswered questions” — a possible reference to a dense list of questions posed by the county’s planning commissioners at their last meeting before they would vote on a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The EDA was to respond with answers this month.
“We don't know who our end user is going to be; we don't know the impact of those who live nearby,” Beirne said. “So I agree that we need to withdraw this because we can't do it this quickly. However, I think this is a unique opportunity for the county, and I think we need to ask the board that they look carefully at this property and consider buying [it] … but it's also important that the county balance the needs of the people that live around it.”
EDA members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, who ultimately vote on whether to proceed with an EDA-proposed project — an aspect that has garnered scrutiny from Chase and other state lawmakers.
In the week preceding Thursday’s announcement, Chase — whose Senate district includes the proposed mega site — posted her opposition to the project on Facebook, and specifically homed in on what she described as the unchecked authority of EDAs across the state.
"Economic development authorities are unelected and are not directly elected and held accountable by the people they represent,” Chase wrote on her public Facebook page on April 26. “I stand with the thousands of homeowners who bought their properties under the current residential zoning under the current Comprehensive Plan and oppose this Matoaca mega site, which should, for transparency’s sake, be called the Bermuda mega site."
The next day, Chase was joined by House Speaker Cox, a former teacher in Chesterfield County, in publicly opposing the project. In September, shortly after then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe announced the mega site proposal on Aug. 31, Cox wrote a letter to the Board of Supervisors requesting they hold additional public meetings in the spirit of transparency.
“While I believe industrial site development in general is merited, it is clear the Chesterfield location does not have the community support necessary for such a significant project to succeed,” Cox said in his April 27 statement. “I hear from constituents regularly who have not been satisfied with the handling of this project and do not approve of building a mega site in Chesterfield.”
Cox pointed to the lack of community support for the project as the reason he could not support its continued progress — news he shared with county officials, while encouraging them to consider a different approach.
“As the Chesterfield County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have the final approval of the zoning, I hope they will take into consideration the concerns of the community above all else,” Cox wrote.
This tone permeated the EDA members’ comments Thursday morning. John Cogbill, the most recently appointed member of the board, expressed his disappointment in how the project was handled throughout the last eight months.
“I went to a lot of these hearings, and it's unfortunate the way this process rolled out — that's my personal view,” Cogbill said. “While everyone's intentions were good, we were trying to — I think we were excited about the opportunity to have some major industrial user come to this site right away — but we did not have answers to questions … and, unfortunately, by the time we had answers [they] were lost in the sort of confusion and concerns that had been manifested, and really it was very difficult for us — in any form, particularly a large forum — to address that.”
Cogbill also said he thinks the county needs to take a harder look at its own ordinances, because he believes there’s good reason to continue looking at the land for economic development, noting it’s been flagged for that purpose in the county’s comprehensive plan “for many, many years,” while hinting he does not believe the current residential zoning is acceptable, either, though.
“It's the largest single site in the county that can be used for economic development purposes,” Cogbill said. “[But] having 5,000 homes, in my view, is not an acceptable solution, either. … There's no one associated with this [proposal] that has not operated in a way trying to inform, trying to educate and trying to build consensus. But we did not do that, and therefore it's my recommendation that the EDA withdraw this and give this further consideration.”
Garrett Hart, the county’s economic development director, gave more pointed remarks to the group.
“It troubles me that I spend my time to come in here to do something good for everyone here, and then there's criticism,” Hart said. “The EDA serves to really spur economic development in the county, and that's what we've tried to do here. Now maybe we didn't do it in the right way. Maybe we did it too fast. We acknowledge that. But I do want everyone to know, we hear your voices, and your voices are being heard throughout the county, and so that's why we're here today, because we want to do something good for the county.”
Hart said he could not comment on the future of the site — or the EDA’s plans moving forward, but he said it was important for the board to have more citizen support.
After the meeting adjourned, Uzel addressed directly the authority members and dozens of community members sporting “No Megasite” stickers.
“I understand the desire for economic development in Chesterfield, and we have never been against that,” Uzel said. “What we've been against most of all in the last seven or eight months is the lack of citizens’ involvement in this process from the start. That's what needs to change — when we are we're told that we're going to do this, instead of asking how can we do this together. That's where I feel that the board has made their mistake, and I hope that'll change as a result of this whole process.”