Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, January 7, 1993 TAG: 9301070349
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JAY TAYLOR CORRESPONDENT
DATELINE: LEXINGTON LENGTH: Long
SIDES HEARD IN QUARRY DISPUTE
The president of Charles W. Barger & Son pleaded Wednesday night with the Rockbridge County Planning Commission to allow him to move his limestone quarry operation to a site just outside Lexington.But after meeting five hours, the Planning Commission voted unanimously not to recommend approval of Chuck Barger's request to rezone 112 acres for industrial use.
At midnight, the planners decided to continue the meeting at 7:30 tonight, with an eye toward discussing rezoning a smaller number of acres. They will also look at Barger's request for a special-use permit to quarry for limestone on 48 acres.
During the public hearing, which was moved from the county supervisors' chambers to a courtroom two blocks away to accommodate an overflow crowd of about 200, Barger said, "We're running out of stone. . . . We've got contracts going out in the next few months. That stone has got to come from somewhere. . . . We need your help."
But an opponent of the move, lawyer Paul Penick, told the Planning Commission that Barger should have "anticipated that problem some years ago rather than create a self-imposed deadline where, in effect, you are forced to act."
The 112 acres adjoins Barger's current quarrying operation. If he is allowed to mine the land, Barger said, all concrete-making equipment now located north of U.S. 60 would be moved into his current quarrying pit, out of sight from most viewpoints.
Lexington lawyer William McClung handled most of Barger's presentation, which lasted about an hour. "I don't believe we can get another quarry zoned in Rockbridge County today," McClung said, emphasizing that the quarry's present location helped keep prices down. "We don't want [the community] to get a reputation for being anti-business and anti-industry." If Barger's request is denied, that would send a negative signal to the business community, he said.
Barger has come under fire from some city and county residents who claim their homes have been damaged by blasting at the quarry. Some residents say Barger has not sufficiently repaired their homes or compensated them.
McClung said Barger has done his best to satisfy those who have complained. "Not everybody has been satisfied . . . but it didn't fall on deaf ears," he said.
Barger and McClung proposed that complaints from now on be sent to an independent arbitration panel. "It will take the burden off of our shoulders," McClung said.
Barger added that he has reduced his blasting charges considerably, and that most complaints occurred during the 1980s and have little bearing on his current plans.
After McClung and Barger spoke, the Planning Commission heard from people supporting the quarry.
Opponents spoke afterward and urged the planners to look at the larger zoning issues involved. They said county zoning had been conducted haphazardly for years and that coherence was needed.
Penick, who has filed several lawsuits against Barger for area residents, assailed the Barger company for not making good on past promises to clean up its operations. "The eastern side of the city has been an eyesore for years. We hear assurances . . . of what the company will do. Look to the past," he urged the planners.
Penick pointed to numerous violations of state mining regulations, and a finding by the county zoning administrator that Barger had violated his conditional-use permit, to support his charge.
The Planning Commission is expected to issue a report to the Board of Supervisors soon.
Barger contends that his businesses, which include construction, concrete and gravel operations, would be severely damaged if he were not allowed to move. They employ 55 people.
Barger has said that his quarrying operation is essential to the development of Lexington and Rockbridge County. Nothing, he says, is built without rock.
Though Barger's plan would move him farther from Lexington, he still would be within a half-mile of homes in the city.
His opponents ask that Barger be required to move out into the county. Barger says his location, near the intersection of Interstates 81 and 64, is crucial to his business.
Barger plans to turn his property north of U.S. 60 into a commercial strip of restaurants and businesses.
\ MOVING THE QUARRY\ BARGER'S ARGUMENTS\ \ Charles W. Barger & Son has a big impact on the Lexington economy.\ \ The quarry would be an extension of an existing mining site.\ \ The blasts would be small, and residents nearby would not be disturbed.\ \ Some 55 jobs would be in jeopardy if the request if denied.\ \ The proposed quarry would not be visible from most vantage points.\ \ Barger would turn the old site into a commercial strip of restaurants and\ shopping centers.\ \ OPPOSITION ARGUMENTS\ \ Barger has used too much dynamite in past blasting operations.\ \ The blasting has damaged foundations and walls.\ \ Some residents are dissatisfied with Barger's response to damage at their homes.\ \ Barger's business would not be damaged if forced to move farther out into Rockbridge County.\ \ Barger has violated the county zoning ordinance by mining outside his permitted area.