SPANISH FORT, Ala. — In a 4-2 vote, businessman Charles Renfroe’s request to gain industrial zoning for his Old Highway 31 property failed Monday night, ending a seven-month dispute that, at times, drew fiery opposition from neighboring business owners and residents displeased with the direction a favorable ruling would have set for the area.

“In my opinion, even if the zoning change to M-1 had passed, this operation would not meet the zoning requirements of M-1 that includes clean, quiet and limited industrial traffic. There is no way you can move the amount of material that has been moved to that site and meet these requirements,” said District 1 Councilman Dennis Dismuke, explaining his vote to deny the request.

Council members Tom Sawyer, Joe Thomas and Mike McMillan joined Dismuke in denying the request.

Mayor Joe Bonner and District 5 Councilwoman Mary Brabner cast the two votes in favor of rezoning.

“My decision was based solely on the facts. I didn’t make a gut call and didn’t let emotion come into it,” said Brabner, who also sits on the Planning Commission, which forwarded a negative recommendation for the request.

At issue was Renfroe’s request to rezone the property housing Asphalt Services Inc. from B-3, or general business, to M-1, or light industrial. For months, however, opponents have argued publicly that the company’s activities—in addition to violating existing zoning regulations—produce disruptive levels of noise, dust and traffic incongruous with the activities of the neighboring business park.

Originally, plans for the property—which sits adjacent to another parcel owned by Renfroe on unincorporated county land—called for the use of concrete crushing equipment that would recycle leftover materials from completed jobs, but the practice drew ire from neighbors. Renfroe agreed in the fall to relocate the offending equipment to an entirely removed site and changed the purpose of his request to allow solely for the creation of a contractor’s storage yard that would allow him to store materials and equipment on the site.

As a means of compromise, the council recommended Renfroe adopt restrictive covenants for the city property to ensure activities conducted would minimize disruption to neighbors and sent the proposed deed-restricted covenants back to the Planning Commission for comments.

Members of the commission declined to provide feedback, however, fearing comments would imply endorsement of a plan the body had already declined to support.

Brabner, who provided a detailed timeline of the property’s evolution over the past 17 years, said she voted in favor of the request because she felt like Renfroe did everything in his power to bring his company’s operations into compliance with zoning regulations that, at times, have been similarly adjusted to accommodate other companies in the interests of economic development.

“If the concrete crushing equipment had never come into play, I don’t think this would have ever become an issue, but it did, and I feel like we did everything to address the issue,” Brabner said.

Bonner said over the course of the situation both the Planning Commission and City Council attempted to be vigilant of the different concerns raised on both sides, but in the end, the impasse could not be resolved in Asphalt Services’ favor.

“My approach in situations like this is to see if we can get to the bottom of it and find a fair and equal solution,” Bonner said, noting the issue presented a series of contradictions.

For instance, when the property was originally purchased in 1993, it predated the construction by neighboring residents, meaning the operations were already being conducted in plain sight.

At the same time, Bonner acknowledged that Asphalt Services has been operating in violation of the B-3 zoning since purchasing the property from businessman Sonny Nichols two years ago.

“As a property owner, should they have made a point to know the zoning regulations? You betcha, and I think Asphalt Services conceded that they dropped the ball in that respect,” Bonner said.

“Could a better job have been done? Yes, on everybody’s part, and that’s the reason this decision was so difficult for everybody to make. It’s my job to make the best of the situation, and I felt like Asphalt Services was showing good intent to try and work this out. I’m just one of those folks that when I see good intent, I don’t see the point of punishing somebody, but the vote didn’t go my way,” he said.

All of the council members polled conceded that the body has no control over what Asphalt Services chooses to do on its adjacent county property, but the vote does limit the scope of those activities.

“While it is true that we cannot control what takes place on the county property, this vote will limit the size of the operation due to available space,” Dismuke said.

In other business, the council:

The next regular meeting of the council will begin with a 5 p.m. work session in the conference room at City Hall on May 3, followed immediately by the regular meeting at 6 p.m. at the Gathering Place in the Prodisee Center.