Planning Commission closer to a vote on Barger Quarry
Geologist Specialist Gerald Wilkes tells Rockbridge County Planning Director Sam Crickenberger about the different types of rock formations in the county. Photo by Melissa Caron
No decision about the proposed Barger quarry expansion was made at Tuesday’s county Planning Commission meeting, but the five members of the commission are now steps closer to voting.
Planning Commission members Timmy Alphin, Walkers Creek District, announced his support of the proposed zoning change and David Winston, Buffalo District, voiced his opposition. They were the only members to say how they would vote.
The commission must make a final decision at its next monthly meeting on Nov. 14 at 7 p.m. That decision will be a non-binding recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, which must hold another public hearing at its meeting Nov. 26, a Monday, at 7 p.m. The supervisors may reject the commission’s recommendation – they have done so on other issues in the past – but they will vote on the proposed zoning change that night or at their next meeting.
Tuesday’s meeting, which fell outside the commission’s usual monthly meeting schedule, was used as a working session for members to ask questions about the expansion. No public comment was allowed.
Quarry owner Charles Barger filed a permit in August to rezone 54 acres adjacent to his current limestone quarry for the future expansion of his operations. In order to expand, Barger would need to rezone the land from residential and agricultural to industrial. Nearly 40 acres are currently zoned residential.
Members of Planning Commission met with representatives of the state’s Division of Mineral Mining to have their questions answered before they vote at the next Planning Commission meeting. The division, an agency under Virginia’s Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, is responsible for regulating the safety and reclamation of the state’s mining operations.
Neighbors of the proposed expansion have spoken out at the past three Planning Commission meetings, saying the quarry’s expansion onto land along Old Farm Road leaves their homes and families at risk of rock flying out of the quarry, more commonly known as flyrock.
Winston said he opposed the current plan, which allows for only a 100-foot setback between mining operations and the property line, and questioned how the quarry would expand after the 54 acres were used.
“We need to realize that there is going to be another decision, that this is not just where it ends,” Winston said. Barger owns land across the road from where he is looking to expand, and Winston questioned whether Barger would look to expand onto that land in the future.
Barger said he was not currently prepared to consider additional rezoning, and is asking the commission to look only at the current plan.
Winston says landowners along Old Farm Road thought that the 1993 rezoning decision that gave the quarry more land was the last time they would need to worry about an expansion.
Neighbors have suggested that the Planning Commission grant Barger five acres for his expansion. They say that will give Barger time to look for another location for his quarry and provide neighbors with a large enough buffer from flyrock.
Gerald Wilkes, a geologist specialist for the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, presented a map that highlighted the different types of rock formations that can be found in the county. His agency has been working for the past 15 years to create a map that county planners could use for setting aside land for mineral mining.
According to the map, Edinburg rock – the type of rock that Barger is currently mining -- can be found north and south of Lexington and around House Mountain. Edinburg formations, named after the Virginia city of that name, is a hard black limestone that is perfect for using in road construction, Wilkes said.
Winston also raised concerns over the 100-foot setback Barger is proposing, which he says is not adequate.
However, commission member Alphin said he would be comfortable living within 100 feet of blasting. The training of the blasting technician is more important than the distance neighbors are from the blasting, he said. Alphin says he supports the expansion.
Tom Bibb, engineering manager for the Division of Mineral Mining, says there is no rule for determining how close is too close in blasting. Instead, blasters generally tailor the blast to the quarry’s circumstances, he said.
“You can shoot [explosives] very close very safely,” Bibb said.
Jim Smith, mineral mine inspector supervisor for the western part of the state, says flyrock incidents do occur, but they are not the result of the quarry being too close to residents. The biggest problem, he said, is “errors in judgment on the part of blasters.”
An incident at the Barger quarry last year resulted in a piece of flyrock going through the roof of a home 600 feet away. The technician responsible for the blast had his licensed suspended until he received further training, Bibb said.
Barger acknowledged that the blaster no longer works at his quarry.
Matt Kretsch, an inspector for the western region of state, says that he has spent a “substantial amount” of time this past year at the Barger quarry, both for regulatory reasons and to look into complaints.
Planning Commission Chairman Clarence Martin, Natural Bridge District, said he had originally sided with the expansion prior to visiting John Gunner’s property. Gunner’s property would be flanked on two sides by the expansion and his home would stand 100 feet from the quarry wall. Martin, however, did not express how he would vote.
Martin ended the meeting by telling members of the commission the best thing they could do is to talk among themselves, but reminded them that the state’s open meeting law does not allow more than two to meet without giving public notice first.
Residents push back at expansion proposal
Produced by Washington and Lee journalism students.
Lead supervisor: Prof. Brian Richardson
Reporting supervisors:
Technical supervisor: Michael Todd