Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Applicant Argument topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant argues mining's phased nature means nonconforming status should cover whole parcel
Summary
Attorney Jared Anderson told the Board of Zoning Appeals that extractive uses proceed in phases and cited out-of-state decisions and state bonding maps to argue the legally nonconforming mining use should extend to the entire property, not be limited to 53.25 acres.
Jared Anderson, attorney for the applicant in the Purcell appeal, told the board he was not disputing that a legally nonconforming mining use exists on the property but contended the county's limiting the nonconforming status to 53.25 acres was improper for an extractive business. "Mining and other similar uses by their very nature should be treated differently when it comes to their status as a legally nonconforming use," Anderson said.
Anderson cited case law from other states and pointed to state bonding and permit maps used for the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy. He said the applicant submitted a 2017 plat that showed 53.25 acres as the existing mined area and 12.05 acres as proposed; those state submissions, he argued, were not intended to limit the property's lawful nonconforming footprint but were bonding exercises. Anderson asked the board to find the nonconforming status extends across the parcel so operations can shift locations over time without losing legal protection.
County counsel and multiple residents pushed back on the claim, saying Hanover County's ordinance language does not carve out an exception for mining and that expansions should be reviewed through the conditional use permit process so neighborhood impacts can be addressed.
