|
BALLENTINE HOMEOWNERS FIGHT TO KEEP WAL-MART OUT OF A WETLANDS HABITAT
On March 6, 2006, S.C. Department of Natural Resources Environmental Programs Director Robert Duncan sent a letter to Mr. Leslie Parker at the Army Corps of Engineers. The letter, obtained by City Paper, clearly indicates that the SCDNR does not approve of the site.
By Todd Morehead
BALLENTINE HOMEOWNERS FIGHT TO KEEP WAL-MART OUT OF A WETLANDS HABITAT
The picturesque countryside of Ballentine, just north of Irmo, has long been a popular respite for people who want to live within driving distance of Columbia while still enjoying the comforts of the country. The town and the outlying rural communities, dotted with farmhouses and old growth forests, was even able to retain its tranquil appeal through Irmo’s development boom in the recent years. Until now, that is.
The tendrils of urban sprawl have planted themselves firmly in 43 acres of Ballentine wetlands habitat by way of a controversial annexation of the land by the town of Irmo, even though the annexed property is two miles outside the Irmo town limits.
Bright- Meyers, an Atlanta based commercial real estate development company, has bulldozers waiting in the wings for a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. If the development is approved, the wetlands will be paved over and a Wal-Mart Super Center will go up in its place with all tax revenue siphoned back down the road to Irmo.
Last August, using a narrow strip of railroad right-ofway, which snakes into the Ballentine area, the town of Irmo quietly annexed 43 acres of Ballentine land between Broad River Road and Dutch Fork Road. It is estimated that potential tax revenue and license fees from the annexed site would total $500,000. Irmo can now continue to annex contiguous property adjacent to their newly acquired Ballentine land and rezone it at their discretion from the surrounding community. They need not worry about complaints from the surrounding community, as that community is technically Ballentine and thus has no voice with Irmo town council.
The result is that Ballentine residents will suffer the noise and light pollution, the clogged traffic, and the lowered property values brought on by a gigantic commercial strip mall, but they will receive none of the benefit, such as tax revenue for schools, police or other public services. Real estate developer Bright-Meyers has submitted plans to install a 196,000 square foot Wal-Mart Super Center with 1,000 parking spaces on the annexed property with enough adjoining retail space for up to 36 retail shops.
The mega strip mall will be less than one mile away from a residential area with some of the development stretching within 700 feet of the Milford Park subdivision.
Pam Mason has lived in Milford Park for over two years. She chose the area because of its proximity to Columbia and Lake Murray and also because of the quiet rural setting.
“We understand that developers see this area as highly desirable but we want them to be smart about it,” she said. “You just can’t take a 196,000 square foot store and build it right next to a subdivision. There is no other commercial d e v e l o p m e n t around us and what they are proposing is ridiculous. This development will spawn sprawl all around us and will forever change the face of our neighborhood.”
There are three existing Wal-Mart Super Centers (with two more in development stages) less than 10 miles from Irmo, a town with a population of approximately 11,000. The Harbison Blvd. Wal-Mart is less than one mile from Irmo.
Some residents of Ballentine now worry that what they see as irresponsible development will lower residential property values in the area, increase traffic congestion and raise the crime rate. The light pollution of a 24-hour Super Center will not only blot out the night sky and stars for residents but will also impact whatever nocturnal wildlife survives the destruction of the habitat. Also, the destruction of the wetlands at this site could affect healthy headwaters downstream that feed the Broad River.
Bright-Meyers and Wal-Mart have so far refused to bridge the headwaters streams or protect the wetlands, citing that to do so would be too expensive. The Army Corps of Engineers, however, might not grant a permit unless the retailer submits a plan to develop the land with regard to the environment.
Bennett Shealy, one of the co-owners of the annexed property, has said that another commercial project will go forward if Wal-Mart pulls out.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS On March 6, 2006, S.C. Department of Natural Resources Environmental Programs Director Robert Duncan sent a letter to Mr. Leslie Parker at the Army Corps of Engineers. The letter, obtained by City Paper, clearly indicates that the SCDNR does not approve of the site.
Headwaters streams support a variety of indigenous plants, fish, and amphibians. Nutrients in the runoff water are key to food chains far downstream, which in turn affect water that finds its way into the Broad River.
According to SCDNR, the adjoining forest also “provides food, migration corridors, and nesting sites for a variety of wildlife species.” The thick and healthy tree canopy also helps maintain water quality and cool surface water temperatures as well as acting as a natural barrier for sediment overload. Storm water runoff from parking lots typically has elevated temperature and increased pollution content that would flow into the Metz Branch tributary and eventually into the Broad River.
Also, all the rainwater washed down the massive asphalt parking lot would not be absorbed into the soil to recharge the water table.
Duncan recommended that, should the development go through, they be required to maintain vegetated buffers around the streams, avoid filling the stream valleys, and bridge the streams between parking areas so as not to disrupt ecosystems downstream. “We believe,” Duncan said, “that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated avoidance and minimization of project impacts.
There is no information in the public notice that indicates that the applicant considered alternative sites. We recommend that a permit not be issued for the project as proposed.”
Timothy Hall, a field supervisor for the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife division echoed Duncan’s concern in a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers dated March 4.
“We believe that the total destruction of this stream and adjacent habitat is unnecessary for this non-water dependant project. We recommend the applicant explore alternative analyses. Until all of our concerns are fully addressed, we recommend the project as currently proposed be held in abeyance.”
In a follow up letter to Lt. Colonel Edward Fleming at the Army Corps of Engineers, Hall indicated Bright- Meyers’ apparent concern with extra costs involved with developing the land in an environmentally conscious manner.
But Hall doesn’t appear to think the bridge request is unreasonable. “It is unclear why the price of a bridge would be so expensive in this case,” he wrote, “whereas past projects incorporating bridges have not been nearly as costly.” THE RISE OF “BALLENTINE FIRST”
In September, a group of Ballentine homeowners, headed by Pam Mason and Eileen Nicklaus formed a group called Ballentine First to raise awareness and try to fight the proposed development.
Since the annexation is a done deal, the group now exists to ensure that development is done responsibly and to keep tabs on future projects.
“We want to make sure our voices are heard as residents of Ballentine,” Mason told City Paper. “That has been our biggest battle because of the way the land was annexed into Irmo, they essentially shut us down. We are working hard to make sure this doesn’t happen again in the future.”
Ballentine First has since established www.ballentinefirst. com and a fund to help cover their legal fees, all acquired through donations from the community.
On Oct. 23, the group requested a public comment hearing with DHEC, which has until January, 2007 to recommend 401 Water Quality Certification for the project. Without 401 certification, it is doubtful that the Corps of Engineers will grant Bright- Meyers a permit without the developer agreeing to protect the headwaters streams.
“The Corp of Engineers considers the 401 water quality certification as a critical component of their permit decisions,” said Thom Berry, a DHEC spokesman. “If it’s not there, that raises serious questions in their minds.”
The public hearing in Ballentine was standing room only. And while DHEC has no control or say over where a proposed facility like Wal-Mart chooses to locate, Berry stressed that they do value the community’s input as it helps them address specific scientific or environmental concerns in the permit application process that they may not have considered.
“That information helps us go back to the permit applicant and say, ‘How do you propose to resolve this issue?’” Berry said. “We get a lot of good input and information from these meetings.”
For now the land remains undeveloped and residents of Ballentine have a few more months to say goodbye to residential life as they once knew it.
In the meantime, Ballentine First will continue to keep watch. If development is inevitable, then at least they can make sure it is done responsibly.
|
The Refugee Scam
A similar situation developed in Rwan...
Five Points Historic...
Oh, please!....parking isn't a proble...
S.C. Nazi For Presid...
Vote for the right man that will save...
Warped Tour: Still w...
I didn't realize that cheap plastic w...
Savage Love Chat
hey just doing all my best to meet wi...