Judge rules on rezoning appeal
Published 4:05 pm Tuesday, November 27, 2018
The judge in a hearing Monday related to the Green Ridge landfill ruled to give the plaintiff until Dec. 10 to file an amended complaint.
Judge Theodore J. Markow made the ruling after the court case, which included plaintiff Hubbard Sprouse and defendant the Cumberland County Board of Supervisors. The final order cited that the case can be dismissed should the amendment not be filed before Dec. 10.
Cumberland County Administrator and County Attorney Vivian Seay Giles represented the board of supervisors.
Markow said the plaintiff would have approximately two weeks to file an amended complaint. During these two weeks, the plaintiff can seek legal counsel.
The appeal was filed in response to the county’s decision to grant a rezoning request for the Green Ridge landfill.
The total 1,143.872-acre property at the Cumberland/ Powhatan County border was rezoned from Agricultural-2 (A-2) and Residential-2 (R-2) to Industrial (M-2) in a vote by the Cumberland County Board of Supervisors June 29.
Giles said during the hearing that Sprouse’s letter filed to the court did not contain factual arguments for contending the rezoning appeal. Giles also argued that Sprouse’s appeal did not identify the property involved, details needed in order for the case to continue in court.
Giles cited a 2013 Virginia Supreme Court case involving Caroline County and the Friends of the Rappahannock organization in response to the county approving a sand and gravel operation adjacent to the Rappahannock River. The ruling of the case was a motion to dismiss due to the Friends of the Rappahannock organization being ruled to have not presented “sufficient basis to demonstrate standing,” according to documentation from the 2013 case.
Sprouse argued during the hearing that Cumberland County violated Virginia Code section 15.2-2204. The code titled “Advertisement of plans, ordinances, etc.: joint public hearings; written notice of certain amendments,” under section B, cites that “if the hearing is continued, notice shall be remailed” when a proposed amendment of the zoning ordinance involves a change in the zoning map classification of 25 or fewer parcels of land.
The initial notice for a hearing, according to the code, would need to be given to “the owner or owners, their agent or the occupant, of each parcel involved; to the owners, their agent or the occupant, of all abutting property and property immediately across the street or road from the property affected, including those parcels which lie in other localities of the Commonwealth; and, if any portion of the affected property is within a planned unit development, then to such incorporated property owner’s associations within the planned unit development that have members owning property located within 2,000 feet of the affected property as may be required by the commission or its agent.”
Sprouse argued that the continuation of the Cumberland County Planning Commission meeting from June 14 to June 18 violated the code as he said he, an adjacent resident, did not receive a remailed notice.
Sprouse said after the hearing that this argument was not included in the letter filed to the Cumberland County Circuit Court.
Markow said his brother had been an adjacent landowner of a landfill, and said he could understand Sprouse’s situation. Markow reiterated Giles’ statement that the appeal filed by Sprouse did not use factual evidence to demonstrate the reason for the appeal. He said Sprouse spoke about the merit of the landfill project, whether it was a right or wrong decision, but said the merit of the case was not the subject of the appeal.
The Monday case came after two cases that have taken place in reference to the landfill over the summer. A case filing an injunction against the landfill and a case requesting a referendum occurred at the landfill July 30 and Aug. 7 respectively. Both cases were filed by resident William “Bill” Bruce.