Residents urge commissioners to reject Rural Hall ‘Project Ironspur’; developers, staff and utilities promise more data before July 30 hearing

Dozens of residents asked the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners on July 9 to deny rezoning that would allow a hyperscale data center called Project Ironspur in Rural Hall.

"Overwhelmingly, Rural Hall residents are not in favor of rezoning to allow development of Project Ironspur in its current proposed location," said Sherry Altman, who said she and volunteers knocked on about 3,000 doors and collected nearly 1,000 signatures opposing the project.

Why it matters: residents and some planning staff raised concerns about potential effects on water, noise, air emissions and property values for homes and schools near the proposed site. Planning staff told the board the planning board had voted 7–2 to recommend denial and that the scale and intensity of the project could produce off‑site impacts despite proposed conditions.

Multiple speakers focused on water and public-safety connections. "Beaver Dam Creek flows directly through the middle of the proposed site and within 500 feet or less of all three proposed buildings," warned Jerry Odom, who said that creek connects to the Yadkin River, a major regional drinking-water source. "We should do everything we can to protect the most essential resource we have."

Courtney Driver, a representative of the county's water utility, told the commissioners the utility is permitted to treat up to 91,000,000 gallons per day and currently averages about 37–38 million gallons per day. She said a developer estimate of roughly 600,000 gallons per day was a high-side figure tied to filling or flushing cooling systems and that the utility's hydraulic model shows it can provide the requested capacity — but that source-water and drought triggers and formal shortage-response stages still apply.

Health, wildlife and quality-of-life concerns were frequent. "The massive energy demands of Project Iron Spur may also cause power grid congestion," said Victoria Goldbach, who also warned about noise and light disrupting pets, wildlife and pollinators. Jean Jones, a beekeeper, described vibrations and other stresses that could harm bees.

The developer and site owner responded with voluntary measures and technical clarifications. Michael Fest, representing Montrose (the entitlement/real-estate manager), said the team volunteered to eliminate open-loop cooling and to use closed-loop or extensive recycled-water systems; he described the 600,000‑gallon number as a peak fill/flush volume and said steady daily demand would be much lower once recycling or closed‑loop systems are used. "When we requested 600,000 gallons per day, that was to fill the system initially and then for recycled system when it does need to be... flushed and refilled," he said.

Owner representative Graham Drury of the Drax/Drox Group said the team submitted voluntary noise controls (monitoring and equipment screening) and would consider a stricter sound threshold. "Regarding the commitment to 50 decibels, we will consider that and come back to you the next hearing," Drury said, adding he expected to be able to commit by the July 27 briefing.

On generators and emissions the developer said the final number and configuration of backup generators depends on the power allocation Duke Energy would approve; an estimate offered in public materials suggested up to roughly 150 active generators in some build-out scenarios, with screening walls and equipment yards planned to reduce audible impacts. The developer also said it is evaluating fuel-siting, emission controls and the potential to use SCR/tier‑4 equipment as local air permitting requires.

The developer told the board it is drafting an escrowed, third‑party administered fund intended to offer compensation claims for property owners within 500 feet if appraisals show a demonstrable diminution in value; the owner said it was targeting about $1 million as a starting size and would provide finalized language to staff before the next briefing.

Planning staff asked commissioners to expect further briefings before the quasi-judicial public hearing: staff will present additional materials at a July 27 briefing and the board will hold the public hearing on July 30. Commissioners asked Duke Energy to appear on July 27 to explain power forecasting and rate-setting; Duke did not attend July 9.

Where it stands now: the planning board recommended denial on June 11; commissioners will take sworn testimony and make the four required quasi‑judicial findings at a July 30 hearing. The developer and owner pledged additional technical detail and several voluntary mitigation measures by the July 27 briefing.

Next steps: staff will brief commissioners July 27 and hold the July 30 hearing, at which proponents and opponents who are sworn may present evidence, the county attorney said.