Jefferson County panel overturns zoning officer after residents show state permit calls site a limestone quarry

The Jefferson County Planning Commission voted to overturn a zoning officer’s earlier ruling that rock‑removal activity on an agricultural (A‑1) parcel in Piedmont was a permitted use, after residents and an attorney presented state permits and eyewitness testimony describing the site as a limestone quarry.

The decision followed a two‑hour appeal hearing in which neighbors described repeated explosive blasts, dust plumes and rocks landing on private property. Resident Steven Tamborello said an explosion sent a rock flying into his pasture: “I heard a big boom and the ground started shaking and a rock came flying over the trees and landed 20‑25 feet in front of me,” he said. Brian Michael Asbury and other neighbors described dust coating homes and gardens and blasts that made houses vibrate.

Attorney Scott Hurley, representing the appellants, told the commission he had supplied aerial photographs, a parcel list showing surrounding properties are mostly A‑1 zoned, and a Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation record and NPDES permit that list the operation’s permit type as “mining” and the activity description as “limestone quarry” and a “limestone quarry and processing facility.” Hurley said the state documents and on‑site photos showed blasting and processing inconsistent with ordinary dirt removal and argued the use should be classified as industrial and not allowed in A‑1 zoning.

County staff and the zoning officer had previously advised that removal of soil and hauling was permitted in some circumstances, and that crushing rock on the property would require industrial zoning. The appeal required the commission to weigh whether the current activity was a permitted A‑1 use or an industrial mining operation. Commissioners questioned where the line is drawn between routine land clearing or hauling and an industrial quarry operation, including whether the landowner had intended to convert the site to long‑term mining or to prepare a future built development.

After hearing testimony from multiple nearby property owners, a county planner and the appellants’ attorney, Commissioner (motion maker) moved to overturn the zoning officer’s decision; the motion was seconded and the motion carried. The transcript records the board announcing the motion passed. The transcript does not record a roll‑call tally of individual votes or names for every yea/nay; the board’s minutes should supply a formal roll call.

What happens next: by overturning the zoning officer’s determination, the board’s action requires the county to revisit any administrative authorization that allowed the current scale of rock removal under A‑1 classification. The board did not impose fines or other compliance deadlines from the dais; the zoning officer and county counsel will administratively follow up according to county procedures and any applicable state regulatory obligations noted in the TDEC permit.

The appeal (agenda item 7) occupied the bulk of the meeting’s public‑comment and testimony period. The commission moved on to later agenda items after the vote.