SPANISH FORT, Ala. — Heated community opposition to requested rezoning that would allow Asphalt Services Inc. to use its Old Highway 31 property as a contractor’s storage yard continued during Monday’s regular City Council meeting, despite the …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Please log in to continue |
SPANISH FORT, Ala. — Heated community opposition to requested rezoning that would allow Asphalt Services Inc. to use its Old Highway 31 property as a contractor’s storage yard continued during Monday’s regular City Council meeting, despite the body’s ultimate decision to postpone the item’s consideration until April.
In a saga that has dominated meetings and work sessions for more than six months, owner Charles Renfroe petitioned the Planning Commission originally for a zoning change from B-3, or general business, to M-1, or light industrial, to allow for the pulverization of recycled concrete on the company’s city property. While the item was under consideration, the crushing activities were shifted to adjoining county property, and the commission issued a negative recommendation to the council on the matter based largely on the displeasure of neighboring business and property owners.
Since receiving the item, the council has postponed the items consideration repeatedly as concessions have been made by Renfroe along the way, including the removal of both the concrete crushing operations and material sifting equipment from both the city and adjoining county property. Renfroe also agreed to the drafting of restrictive covenants for the property and those have been through at least one set of revisions since being introduced.
During Monday’s meeting a familiar chorus of residents and business owners affected by Asphalt Services’ activities implored the council to deny the request.
Ronnie Gibson said allowing the light industrial zoning would create excessive traffic and questionable materials handling that would cause a “blight on the neighborhood.” He also asked the council pointedly who benefits from the action besides Renfroe.
“How does this help the city,” Gibson asked.
He also stated he felt members of the community affected have been largely ignored during the deliberation process, but Mayor Joe Bonner said appropriate public hearings on the matter were held at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels.
Bonner said a “concerned adjoining property owner” stated publicly during one of the meetings that if the concrete crushing activities were removed he would have no problem with the rezoning be granted, and similar negotiations took place when the materials grading equipment and restrictive covenants were discussed.
“Now we’re here again,” Bonner said.
District 1 Councilman Dennis Dismuke said he supports the opponents of the activity because the M-1 designation clearly calls for businesses that are “clean, quiet and (produce) little industrial traffic.”
“I just don’t see how we can say this is meeting the requirements of M-1,” Dismuke said.
Attorney David Huggins also took exception to the matter even being before the council because his interpretation of the city’s zoning ordinance requires the Planning Commission issue a recommendation for adoption of any ordinance. Considering the commission did not support the measure, Huggins said he questions whether the council should even be taking action.
City Attorney David Conner clarified, however, that the Planning Commission issued a negative recommendation for adoption. The nuance, he said, is that the council reserves the right to act either in concert with or against the commission’s recommendation, but the zoning ordinance requires only that a recommendation be made.
Dismuke said he is concerned by the amount of time the item has taken to resolve because of the people affected by the activities in question.
“It’s not right we continue to inconvenience these property owners,” Dismuke said.
In his closing comments, Gibson asked the council to “put the citizens of Spanish Fort in the forefront” because the “future of that area depends on your decision tonight.”
Instead, the council voted to postpone consideration until after the Planning Commission’s April 12 meeting, so that body has an opportunity to thoroughly review the proposed restrictive covenants and make a recommendation.
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 April 5, followed immediately by the regular meeting at 6 p.m. at the Gathering Place in the Prodisee Center.