Big Lake gravel issue digs up debate

WASILLA — William Heairet sees a subdivision that isn’t there.

On a tour of a 40-acre property conducted for the Frontiersman March 25, the man behind a controversial application for a gravel pit 550 feet from Big Lake painted a picture of various features that exist only in his mind’s eye — for now.

“This is going to be the lower road of the subdivision,” he said. “At the end, there’s going to be a cul-de-sac. So from here to probably halfway from this gate, halfway to the extraction site will never be touched. That’ll be virgin ground. Halfway through that hill and all these trees are gonna stay. And there’ll be homes this side and this side. There’ll be a street here, street in the middle, and a street at the end. Probably acre-and-a-half lots, I’m gonna say.”

The property at the corner of West Lakes Boulevard and West Belarde Boulevard is riddled with hills and past trails. To make the subdivision a reality, Heairet will have to flatten the property.

“Because of the topo of the ground, you’ve got to do something with the ground,” he said.

The property also contains gravel with low silt content, which makes it more valuable. Heairet currently takes about 2,000 cubic yards of gravel per year off of the property. He’d like to take more, and so he’s applied to the Mat-Su Borough for an Interim Materials District for the property to remove 750,000 cubic yard of material from 25 acres. He’s also hoping to sell gravel for the planned improvements of nearby Horseshoe Lake Road.

However, opponents say the pit will prove to be a nuisance and a safety risk, that heavy trucks will damage borough roads and hamper area traffic. Some — like Doug and Suzie Longacre — also point out that the gravel pit violates the area comprehensive plan.

“Basically, making this decision comes down to doing what is right,” they wrote. “Is it right for one couple to be able to operate a gravel pit until 2040 for monetary gain when such an operation endangers the health, safety, and quality of life for hundreds of residents in the area?”

The application for the conditional use permit deadlocked the planning commission. Heavy public testimony at the commission’s March 21 meeting pushed the meeting’s adjournment almost to midnight. Resolutions supporting the application’s approval and recommending denial both failed over concerns about whether Heairet’s gravel pit fits with the Big Lake comprehensive plan.

The resolution heading to the full assembly later this month summarizes the commission’s findings that “the proposed use with conditions, may not be harmful to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare.” Commissioners Tom Healey, Mary Anderson and Colleen Vague found the proposed pit incompatible with the Big Lake comprehensive plan, while commissioners Bill Kendig, Vern Rauchenstein and John Klapperich found the proposed pit compatible with the plan. Commissioner Tom Adams was absent.

In April 2009, Heairet withdrew an application for a conditional use permit for the pit, and in August of that year, borough officials shut down Heairet’s pit for allegedly exceeding the 2,000 cubic-yard limit.

The Big Lake Community Council and the Big Lake road service area board of supervisors — which opposed the conditional use permit pit in 2009 — both voted to support the pit this time around.

The way Heairet sees it, his desire to develop his property is a blending of his personal interest and the public interest in keeping the cost of the improvement down. His pit is close to the planned Horseshoe Lake Road improvements (slated to go out to bid this spring), which would reduce costs for that project. Less money spent on fuel means contractors can spend more of their budget on materials.

“Eight-tenths of a mile, it comes from this site to the road,” he said. “Depending on what pit we use, other than this one, it would be 15 miles, and that’s one way I’m talking now. As you can see, trucking on the job will be done ten times quicker and using a lot less of the road.”

Borough staff also found the pit violated the comprehensive plan for the area, said Mat-Su Borough Development Services Director Alex Strawn. The comprehensive plan isn’t intended to be a regulation in itself, but borough code requires the planning commission to consider the comprehensive plan before granting approval.

“We’re put in an odd position with this,” he said.

Others, like Bill Haller, say they support the gravel pit. With appropriate notice posting and noise protections, the gravel pit could work.

“I strongly suggest we put the best interest of our community and the Mat-Su Borough first and allow this gravel pit to move forward so we can afford to maintain our local RSA road projects,” Haller wrote.

Heairet also said he faces federal constraints on the amount of gravel he can take. While he’s applied for the maximum amount of gravel to be removed from the site, the annual amount of gravel he plans to remove is much lower.

“Whether I ask for the maximum or minimum, the federal standard for the minimum, after each five-acre parcel, I have to re-vegetate,” he said. “So in order to do that you use less than 50,000 yards, or less than five acres, per year.”

Borough officials hope to place the gravel pit on the April 19 meeting agenda, but the issue may ultimately be delayed until early May, Strawn said.

Contact reporter Brian O’Connor at 352-2270, brian.oconnor@frontiersman.com, or on Twitter @reporterbriano