Commissioners reject resolution to approve proposed waste-grinding processing facility after hours of debate

The Montgomery County Board of Commissioners on Aug. 11 rejected a resolution to approve a proposed permanent waste-grinding and processing facility, voting 0 yes, 20 no.

Commissioner Chris Gannon, who led much of the discussion, asked commissioners to consider an amended resolution that he said would insert protections for the county if the facility moved forward. “What we’re going to ask you to do is to vote on this to be amended as it is just in case it passes that we at least have some kind of protections inside this resolution,” Gannon said. The motion to adopt the amendment passed 20-0.

After extensive debate on zoning, legal definitions and community impacts, commissioners voted on the underlying resolution — recorded in the meeting as resolution 25 6 8, regarding approval of a waste-grinding permanent processing facility — and it failed 0-20.

Why it mattered: commissioners raised zoning and legal concerns tied to state law and local code. Multiple speakers said the parcel was not zoned for the proposed operations and that additional zoning approvals would be required before the county should approve operations. Commissioner Harper said the parcel is “currently zoned C5 at the front and AG at the back, so it doesn’t meet the requirements of being M2 zone,” and urged a vote against the proposal. Commissioner Gannon and others also noted uncertainty about whether state rules (referred to in the meeting as the “Jackson law”) and recent litigation nationwide affect how the county should treat this application.

Legal and procedural issues discussed: county legal counsel (referred to in the meeting as Mr. Harvey) told commissioners that definitions in a 20-year-old statute are being litigated in other Tennessee counties and that those legal uncertainties informed his advice. “A lot of those definitions are up in the air,” Harvey said, noting differences among terms such as compost facility, processing facility, landfill expansion and transfer station.

Operational concerns: commissioners and speakers discussed whether the applicant’s intended business matched the application language. Commissioner Smith observed that the applicant’s business name—Kennedy Transfer Station LLC—includes “transfer station,” while the application checked the box for “processing facility,” raising legal and enforcement questions. Several commissioners expressed concern the applicant’s property was not zoned M2 (industrial), and that a separate rezoning and approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals would be required.

Votes and motions: the amendment to the resolution passed 20-0. The main motion to approve resolution 25 6 8 as amended failed 0-20. The transcript shows the original motion for approval was made earlier in the meeting and later put to a vote after debate.

Impact and next steps: because commissioners voted down the resolution, the applicant may reapply; speakers noted no fee or statutory bar to reapplication was identified during the discussion. The transcript does not record a county directive for further staff study or a referral to another body at this meeting.