Attorney says proposed Inwood asphalt plant may operate long-term as neighbors press safety, traffic concerns

The Berkeley County Planning Commission voted to advance the concept plan for a proposed asphalt plant at the Inwood Quarry to the detailed site-plan stage after staff found the concept met subdivision requirements.

The project, filed as Superior Paving Corporation Asphalt Plant (file 2604-187), would occupy about 14 acres inside the existing quarry and use private well and septic systems. Patrusi of Greenway Engineering represented the applicant at the public hearing and described the proposal and its compliance with county subdivision rules.

Attorney Robert Sproul, representing Superior Paving, told the commission that although the application is labeled “temporary,” the company holds a 10-year lease with automatic five‑year renewals and asked that the record reflect the potential for long-term occupancy. “What we wouldn't want to happen is for this to be considered temporary and then in 10 years ... they're having to come back and say no this is this isn't something that was temporary,” Sproul said.

Residents and commissioners pressed plant representatives and staff on traffic access and tank-farm safety. One attendee, who said he had been involved in the Charleston leak into the Elk River, urged caution and asked about protections for waterways. Commissioners asked whether the quarry entrance or an access off Route 11 would be used, and whether containment measures would be concrete or other materials; a participant noted that containment at the site would be a concrete floor.

County staff and the county engineer said entrance permits and site-plan review at the detailed stage could require upgrades and that the International Building Code’s temporary-use definitions can differ from how long a facility actually operates. Staff recommended advancing the concept to the detailed site-plan phase so those details — including access, containment, and permit conditions — can be addressed there.

The motion to accept staff’s recommendation was made by Mr. Lewis and seconded by Mr. Goff; the motion carried. Planning documents show the commission did not grant final site approval at this meeting; the project will return for detailed review and public hearing where specific conditions, access permits and operational limits can be required.

Next steps: the applicant will prepare detailed site plans and return to the commission for formal site-plan approval and any required permitting. The commission’s advancement does not authorize construction.