Pam Smith, a Hamptonville resident, addresses the Yadkin Board of Commissioners during the public comment portion of Monday’s meeting about concerns regarding a rezoning request that could result in a mining operation coming to Hamptonville.
Several Hamptonville area residents took the opportunity to speak during Monday’s Yadkin County Board meeting regarding their continued opposition to a proposed rezoning that would allow for an aggregate quarry in the community. The rezoning request was tabled for the second time earlier this month by the Yadkin County Planning Board and is expected to be revisited at its June 13 meeting. Following the planning board’s recommendation on the matter, the issue will go the county board.
Hamptonville resident Pam Smith spoke Monday sharing concerns about how the proposed mine could affect traffic on Hwy 21 as well as potential impacts to nearby Lake Hampton and the overall peace of mind of area residents.
She recounted that she and her husband were doing yardwork recently and noticed the traffic on the road near their home.
“The traffic was so bad we couldn’t even have a conversation unless we were standing right next to one another,” she said. Smith continued to say she was concerned the traffic would get worse with trucks from the mine.
“We’re looking to you, our county leaders, to put a stop to this before everything is destroyed. Nobody in that area wants their way of life changed. Nobody in that area wants to see it destroyed. We want to live the way we have lived. We’ve worked hard for our properties. And we’ve worked hard for the things we have and enjoy on those properties. It’s not an easy thing to give up.”
Brad Storie, a resident of Three Oaks Rd. in Hamptonville, also spoke on the matter, expressing that it was causing “mental anguish.”
“There’s several people that are worrying themselves to death over this,” Storie said.
Hamptonville residents first became aware of test drilling on the property late last year and concern quickly grew about what was going on with the property. Three Oaks Quarry, which hopes to build an aggregate quarry on the site, has now held a community information session. Representatives for the group have also presented detailed information about mitigation factors that would be in place in order to cause minimal impact on the neighboring area during two separate meetings of the Yadkin Planning Board. The first meeting, held April 11 was around three hours long with both sides taking turns speaking on the issue. The planning board tabled a decision that night, saying they needed further information from Three Oaks. A second meeting held May 9 began with an announcement that a decision was not to be made during that meeting either.
Despite assurances from Three Oaks Quarry that neighbors will not be greatly impacted by the quarry operation, which is in close proximity to West Yadkin Elementary School, neighbors remain steadfastly against the project.
“Let’s don’t drag this thing out,” Storie said, referencing the delay in decision from the planning board.
“I’m going to tell you something, I’ve already talked to my doctor and lawyer and I may sue Jack Mitchell for mental anguish when this is over whether it goes in or doesn’t go in,” Storie said, referring to Mitchell, president of Three Oaks Quarry.
Though the commissioners do not typically respond to speakers following public comments, several board members did address the situation during their comment time at the close of Monday’s meeting.
“Is it going to matter what this board says?” asked Commissioner Frank Zachary. “Are they going to go to the state and just get it done?”
Chairman Kevin Austin said that unlike zoning requests that go before the Board of Adjustments and require a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, the proposed rezoning request from Three Oaks was different and would not go before the Board of Adjustments.
Austin said that the delay in making a decision was not intentional by the planning board.
“It’s all been about gathering facts and making sure the applicant has a complete application,” he said. “We would be remiss to consider the issue without adequate information and that’s been the desire of the planning board.
“They [the planning board] are tasked with determining the appropriateness according to the land use plan,” Austin said. “They’re not tasked with looking at the entire picture like we are.”
The board voted Monday to cancel its previously planned meeting for July 5 but will have its regularly scheduled evening meeting at 7 p.m. on July 18. As the planning board expects to make its decision on June 13, the public hearing before the county board will likely be scheduled for July 18.
“We’re pretty sure we’ll be ready to act in July unless somebody throws some kind a wild curveball,” Austin said. “Hang in there a little longer y’all, please.”
