Eight Evington residents file appeal to rezoning for rock quarry

Eight Evington residents have filed a legal appeal of the Campbell County Board of Supervisor’s decision to rezone 353 acres for a rock quarry.

The appeal, filed in Campbell County Circuit Court on Nov. 3., claims that the supervisors’ vote approving a quarry and rock crushing operation was arbitrary, unreasonable, incompatible with surrounding land use and contrary to requirements of the Campbell County Zoning Ordinance, according to court records.

Additionally, plaintiffs John Potter, Lorraine Potter, Edwin B. Lewis, Julie G. Russell, R. Gregory Pence, Cynthia M. Lewis, Ronnie Hall and Dom DiMuro contend that the board’s action “was solely to serve and promote the private interest of a single landowner, rather than to further the locality’s welfare as part of the overall zoning plan,” documents said.

While the appeal was filed, county supervisors have not been served with documents, Campbell County attorney David Shreve said. “The county doesn’t have to respond until 21 days after it’s served, so of course the county hasn’t responded to it at all.”

The board voted 5-2 on Oct. 7 to approve a request to rezone 353 acres in Evington owned by Boxley Materials Co. from residential and agricultural to heavy industrial. The board also approved a special use permit for a rock quarry and crushing operation. The board cited good zoning practices consistent with economic development and land use as its reason for the approval.

The vote came after a contentious two-day public hearing where supporters said the quarry was crucial to economic growth in the area and opponents said the quarry would harm the community’s character and property values.

Plaintiffs must file an appeal within 30 days of the board voting on a measure, Shreve said.

“I can tell you that the law on this is that the person who appeals the decision of the board has the burden of proving in the first place that the action of the board is arbitrary and capricious,” Shreve said. “If they can pass that, then the burden of proof shifts to the locality to show that its action was not arbitrary.”A phone call from a reporter Thursday afternoon was the first time board chairman Hugh Pendleton heard of the appeal.

“I’m not surprised. They were pretty adamant in their feelings, but I don’t know any of the details so I’m not in a position to comment about it,” he said. “But it’s not uncommon when rulings go contrary to how people feel that it ends up in court. Maybe that’s a good place for it.”