Matthews hears plan for 123-acre data center on East John Street; commissioners press for power assurances

Matthews commissioners held a joint public hearing Sept. 8 on zoning petition 2025815, known as “Project Accelerate,” a request to rezone about 123 acres south of I‑485 along East John Street from R‑12 (residential) to I‑2 CD (industrial, conditional) to allow a data center and accessory uses.

The developer and its consultants described a campus of data center buildings set back from East John Street with expanded buffers, an 80‑foot maximum building height near the road, a proposed 10‑foot multi‑use path (a “linear park”) and commitments to preserve tree canopy where possible. Bridget Grant, land‑use consultant for the applicant, said the proponent would limit permitted uses to data centers and typical accessory infrastructure, would fund a new dedicated substation, and would deploy a closed‑loop water cooling system to limit municipal water use.

Why it matters: the site is one of the largest undeveloped tracts inside Matthews, directly abutting existing and planned employment uses. The request would change the character of the corridor and raise questions about electric capacity, noise and long‑term reuse of large, power‑intensive buildings.

What proponents said

Bridget Grant (land‑use consultant) and Drew Nations (EOS, developer representative) told the council the site is well‑suited for data‑center use because it is large, wooded and adjacent to high‑capacity transmission lines and regional fiber. Grant said the rezoning would be limited to data center uses; if a tenant were not secured the developer would need a new rezoning to change uses. Nations said the team has been conducting multimonth studies with Duke Energy and expects to build and pay for a new substation dedicated to the campus to serve the load, which they said would not come from the town’s distribution without proper engineering and approvals.

The applicant also provided traffic comparisons showing a large, hypothetical data center would produce far fewer daily vehicle trips than a by‑right single‑family subdivision on the same acreage, and said jobs at the campus would likely number in the low hundreds with average wages above $100,000.

Residents’ and commissioners’ questions

Speakers in the audience and several commissioners pressed for specific, written assurances from Duke Energy about capacity and operational effects. Jim Arzinski, a resident, asked whether Duke could supply the power without local brownouts; David Ross of the Environmental Advisory Committee asked which emergency power systems would be used (diesel generators, batteries or other) and about testing schedules, noise and test timing; other residents raised concerns about fire suppression methods, onsite backup water tanks, electronic waste disposal, and visibility of buildings from nearby Brightmoor. Commissioners asked for clearer maximum square‑footage limits, conceptual site sections showing sightlines to Brightmoor (where deciduous trees thin in winter), and for an actionable plan on architectural review and final elevations.

Developer responses and outstanding items

Developers reiterated they would fund and build a dedicated substation and are working with Duke Energy on a formal load study. They said cooling will use closed‑loop systems (which significantly reduce municipal water withdrawals) and that modern data centers use early‑warning fire suppression and built‑in redundancy. They committed to provide additional materials: buffer exhibits, illustrative renderings, conceptual maximum square footage, cross‑sections to show lines of sight toward Brightmoor, and a plan for architectural review. They also said they would provide a project FAQ and public website (projectacceleratenc.com).

What the board did

The board reached consensus to close the public hearing and have the application go to the Planning Board for further review; commissioners asked staff and the applicant to supply the outstanding materials before Planning Board consideration. Several commissioners said they would like Duke Energy to provide a clear written summary — at minimum a statement describing the proposed approach to serve the site and whether the applicant will use a separate substation — before the Board acts on any final rezoning.

Next steps

The application will proceed to the Matthews Planning Board for more detailed review; the applicant expects to return with the additional documentation requested by staff and commissioners. The Board did not vote on final rezoning Sept. 8; it closed the hearing to receive more information and referral to Planning Board.

Ending note: The hearing highlighted typical tensions over large, infrastructure‑intensive uses: developers point to reduced traffic and higher tax base potential, while residents and some commissioners seek binding commitments from utilities and clearer mitigation for noise, visibility and emergency‑power impacts.