BIG LAKE -- Plans to expand a gravel pit near the shores of Big Lake have incensed some homeowners in the scenic neighborhood that surrounds the pit.
The pit, first established in 1999, sits near the end of West Lakes Boulevard -- a narrow, oft-patched two-laner that winds several miles to the lake's north side.
Gravel is one of only a few major resource industries in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, a growing region that has little zoning outside cities to regulate what industry goes where; Big Lake residents decided not to become one of those cities last year.
There are more than 200 gravel extraction sites in Mat-Su. Operators face little regulation if they remove limited amounts of gravel and pay no taxes on any rock they remove.
Bill "Happy" Heairet and his wife, Helen, have owned the pit since 2008. Now they want borough approval for what's called an Interim Materials District, essentially a long-term industrial zone, on 40 acres they own. Plans call for as many as 100 truckloads of gravel to move down the road every day and the removal of up to 750,000 cubic yards of gravel on 25 acres through 2040.
About six years ago,the Heairets filed an application for a conditional-use permit for a smaller expansion but withdrew it amid loud opposition from neighbors concerned about truck traffic, noise and dust, as well as from the Big Lake Community Council, the local road service area and fire department.
This time around, the decision is headed all the way to the Mat-Su Assembly. The proposal goes up for a public hearing and potential decision Tuesday evening in Palmer.
And it's getting the same pushback.
'Doesn't belong'
There are more than 200 properties within a mile of the gravel pit. The borough received nearly 70 comments about the proposed expansion.
Concerns centered on noise, air pollution and dust, damage to already-deteriorated West Lakes Boulevard and heavy industrial truck traffic posing a danger to children who wait at bus stops in the area, as well as pedestrians and cyclists.
Kim Grabbe lived at Big Lake full time starting in 2002, though she moved to Anchorage in 2012. Grabbe said she also lost her local say by losing the right to vote with the Big Lake Community Council, which now has no objections to the expansion, according to a vote last month. That's even though the gravel expansion violates the local comprehensive plan adopted in 2009 to guide growth, Grabbe said.
She echoes concerns voiced by several property owners interviewed for this story: The expansion will erode the lakeside atmosphere that draws people to Big Lake in the first place. The lake has long been seen as Anchorage's playground: a recreational escape for many who don't live in the community year-round but own weekend homes.
"A gravel pit really doesn't belong there, not in a residential area," she said. "That's really what it boils down to."
Longtime resident and vocal expansion opponent Carol Kane is president of the community council but recused herself from facilitating the pit expansion discussion over her and her husband's opposition.
Kane and her husband bought their cabin in 1997 and built a lakefront log home in 2001. She said she's already witnessed problems from the existing, smaller operation, including truck traffic that makes for unsafe conditions on the road.
"The permit is for an industrial permit. That's a big operation," Kane said. "Once you go to industrial, that ratchets it up to a real high level."
Neighborhood improvement
Heairet, however, says nearly all the neighbors right next to his pit support the expansion. He pins much of the opposition on "weekenders" rather than full-time residents.
He and his wife plan to put in a park and 16 home lots at just under 2 acres each once the gravel is gone. The permit requires him to reclaim the land first, something he doesn't have to do right now under borough regulations because he's taking out less than 2,000 cubic yards a year.
Heairet, who makes a living as a contractor, said the reclamation and the future subdivision will actually improve the neighborhood and the look of the pit. He also said he doesn't expect to move 100 loads of gravel regularly on a daily basis.
If people want to regulate industry on private property, they need to vote for zoning, he said. "These people don't want zoning but they want to dictate what you should do with your own land."
Lakeside Sand and Gravel plans to create 10-foot earth berms to screen the pit from the neighborhood and run from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. weekdays with hauling on occasional Saturdays, but no rock crushing or screening that day. Heairet has a screening plant on site, but said he doesn't plan to do any crushing unless he gets a larger job -- say, a borough road project rather than the home sites and driveways he normally does.
Supporters of the expanded pit say it would provided a cheaper source of gravel for road projects and local development and improve the local economy. They say the existing gravel extraction hasn't bothered the neighbors.
Danny Drum, owner of Danny's Auto Body in Anchorage, submitted a comment to the borough planning commission saying he contracted the Heairets for work on three lots that share a property line with the gravel pit.
"I have always found them to conduct themselves and their business in a respectful and professional manner," Drum wrote.
Going against the plan?
The Big Lake pit expansion is already further along than the 2009 bid.
The borough planning commission last month voted to recommend the Assembly deny the permit. But after a lengthy debate, they also took the highly unusual step of including in an official resolution the fact that the six voting members were split 3-3 on whether the expansion was incompatible or "may be" incompatible with the Big Lake Comprehensive Plan.
That's despite the fact the borough planner assigned to the project found the gravel pit expansion clashes with the plan.
The comprehensive plan states responsible land use "should be in harmony with surrounding land use without damaging the health, safety and welfare of adjacent property." It encourages business development but also the protection of the community's rural character.
The plan states high-traffic activities should be discouraged and noise minimized in the kind of residential area the pit occupies. It calls for industrial development near the airport and south of Susitna Parkway, not the north side of Big Lake, where the pit is located.
"The plan does not specially address gravel extraction, however, with the repeated effort to protect and preserve the natural beauty and character of the Big Lake Community (it) seems implicit that operating a large gravel extraction operation in the Dispersed Residential area is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan," borough planner Mark Whisenhunt wrote in a report he submitted to the planning commission.
Heairet last week questioned the validity of applying the comprehensive plan to his pit, which he says predated even an earlier version before the 2009 changes were adopted.
Heairet said he and his wife are trying to accommodate the recreational lifestyle that many people enjoy.
"We live on the lake as well and we enjoy our weekends," he said.