Developer asks judge to reverse decision over Jefferson County ‘quarry’

JEFFERSON COUNTY, Tenn. (WATE) — The developer of what has been called a “quarry” in Jefferson County is asking a judge to reverse the decision of the county Board of Zoning Appeals made in April that stopped operations.

Earlier this year, the community raised concerns over the “quarry”, which is located about 200 yards from Piedmont Elementary School. Some of those concerns included dust, blasting noises, and the ground shaking from blasting activities. During the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting on April 23, the board decided to halt operations.

However, the petition filed on June 20 by East Tennessee Land Development, LLC, argues that the board lacked jurisdiction to make the decision that it did, that the board’s vote was “heavily influenced by emotional and improper evidence,” and that the board used selective enforcement while allowing other businesses to operate similarly under the same zoning.

According to the document, in 2021, the developer spoke with zoning officer Tim Seals who told them they could remove rock and dirt without a permit from the county, but rock could not be crushed and processed on-site. Even further, the developer alleges the Seals said they could get whatever permit they believed they needed from the state, but the zoning officer “didn’t care what permit.”

Later in the petition, the developer claims that in spring 2024, Seals and another zoning officer came by the property because neighbors had raised concerns at Jefferson County Planning Commission meetings, but Seals said the developers were “good to go with the county.” Reportedly, Seals said that Jefferson County would not try to stop the developer’s operation and that “worst case scenario, you would be grandfathered in,” the petition states.

Another point made in the petition is that the developers argue that because the rock was not processed on-site, the operations cannot be considered “quarrying,” stating that the property has instead been inspected by the State of Tennessee as a “Borrow Pit.”

Conversely, a Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation permit for a property under Whaley Construction LLC lists a mining operation with the activity description of “limestone quarry.” The property is listed along Highway 25 West and states that it is an unnamed tributary to the Piedmont Branch. Although the company name is different, the president of Whaley Construction listed on the company’s website, Matt Whaley, is the same name listed in a Knoxville-Knox County planning agenda item alongside East Tennessee Land Development, LLC.

Specifically in reference to the April meeting, the petition claims that the developer was told by Seals that the board would only be listening to complaints at the hearing but was not considering taking any action and that the developer’s attendance was unnecessary.

The meeting notice for the meeting lists item number 7 for the appeal of the decision of the zoning officer regarding the rock quarry property. At the meeting, several individuals aired concerns about how the operations affect those who live in the area, as well as if the operations fit under the property’s A-1 zoning.

Around 34 minutes into the meeting , Seals recounted a similar account to what was stated in the petition, although he did also mention that if the rock were to be crushed there, the land would need to be zoned as “industrial.”

During the meeting, Attorney Scott Hurley argued that a permit filed by the developer with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation classified the operations as a “mining operation.” The petition includes a transcript of deliberations between BZA members at the meeting that states that mining is not allowed in A-1 zoning and that it is only allowed in I-1 zoning. The transcript states that the BZA member decided to move to overturn the zoning officer’s decision because they believed based on a permit that it was a mining operation.

Not only does the petition argue that the operation is not a mining operation, but it also alleges that if it were, mining operations are allowed under any zoning district in Jefferson County under Section 8.2 of the Jefferson County Zoning Resolution . That section states:

“It is recognized that the extraction of minerals is a basic industry within the area subject to this ordinance. It is further recognized that the location of underground mineral deposits will not necessarily coincide with the district boundaries established by this ordinance. It is not the purpose of this ordinance to regulate mining operations under the surface of the land or restrict strictly temporary prospecting work by core or churn drill in any district. “

The petition also states that the county, through the BZA or otherwise, has not sought to halt operations at other businesses with similar or more intrusive uses, such as mines and quarries, in A-1 zoning, alleging that there is permission for other business owners who are more favored by the county.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WATE 6 On Your Side.