THOMASTON – The zoning board of appeals Tuesday approved permits for two Beechwood Street gravel pits, allowing the hauling in of materials from other locations for processing, but reducing the number of days the businesses may operate.

According to Code Enforcement Officer Peter Surek, the board voted 3-1 to allow George C. Hall & Sons and Dwight L. Overlock Construction to process materials, such as loam, rocks and stumps, from other locations at the Beechwood Street sites.

Board members Anita Knowlton, Doug Erickson and Paul Scalzone voted in favor of the permits, while Jeff Armstrong opposed the action. Grace Kirkland was absent.

The controversy over the gravel pit operations has dragged on for nearly 18 months.

Shortly after the death of a 14-year-old Rockland boy, who was hit by a commercial dump truck on Beechwood Street in July 1999, residents organized in an effort to reduce the amount of truck traffic on their street.

The residents say that the accident brought to a head festering concerns about the volume of traffic, speed, noise, dust, road deterioration and overall quality of life issues. Some of the conditions the zoning board placed on the two businesses Tuesday were days and hours of operation, Surek said Wednesday. The pits may not operate on Saturdays and Sundays, or certain holidays, he said. The pits may be operated from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, he said.

On Wednesday, Overlock’s lawyer, James Brannan, said that his client was disappointed with the board’s decision to cut a day from his workweek, but did not yet know if that decision would be appealed.

Wayne Crandall, the lawyer who represented Hall, and Sam Cohen, who represented the Beechwood Street group, could not be reached Wednesday for comment.

Joan Sanborn, a spokeswoman for the Beechwood Street group, said they had not decided on an appeal to Knox County Superior Court.

The matter went before the planning board and zoning board twice. Both boards supported the gravel pit owners. In a September appeal in Superior Court, Justice Francis Marsano ruled that the matter had not been fully considered by the zoning board and remanded the case back to the board.

The next step in the process is to go to Superior Court again. Either party may appeal the zoning board’s decision to the court or, if new evidence can be proved, the matter may be appealed to the zoning board for reconsideration, Surek said.