Residents, experts press county over Hampton borrow pit, blasting and ethics concerns

Hundreds of Carter County residents and multiple experts addressed the commission about an active borrow pit operation on a ridge in Hampton, raising health, safety, road‑damage and ethics concerns and urging the county to investigate possible conflicts of interest.

Speakers described repeated blasting, heavy truck traffic and property‑value losses, and several asked the commission to remove a local planning‑commission member from that body. A consultant who said he was retained to monitor vibration presented the only public instrument reading reported to date: a peak particle velocity of 0.104 inches per second from a July 28 test, which he said was below Tennessee regulatory limits for ground vibration.

The scale of comment reflected sustained local opposition. Theresa Notiford, who said she and her sister own property in Hampton, told commissioners the quarry activity is “a health hazard” for children and older adults and will hurt tourism in the area. Celeste Lance, who identified herself as an Elizabethton resident, said she and neighbors have experienced what she described as intimidation and harassment tied to the dispute over the operation.

Ben Brown, who said he grew up, works and lives in Hampton, framed the issue as both safety and ethics. Brown read excerpts from state guidance and said: “It is unethical for a public official to be paid for a borrow pit that he helped install on his own property,” and he said records produced under a public records request showed no minutes or public discussion on the project before site work began.

Multiple speakers urged the commission to act. Taylor Brown asked commissioners to remove planning‑commission member Gary Bailey, asserting that the project was begun without community notice and that heavy machinery now runs six days a week. Matt Delozier, a veteran and neighborhood resident, described residents who he said now fear for their safety and privacy when unknown vehicles park outside homes.

The property owner or leaseholder spoke during the meeting. At a later point Gary Newley (recorded as speaking from an address in Hampton) said he had leased land for extraction, described the site as rocky and said he had required the contractor to repave roads and limit some impacts. Newley said he intended to restore the site and “cut plumb flat with a foot to 3 foot of dirt over it” and return it to agricultural use when work completes.

The county heard technical testimony from David Rose of Vibration Control Engineering (VCE), who said his firm performed pre‑blast surveys and operates three seismographs near the site. Rose described Tennessee’s vibration criteria and said the only instrumented blast reported publicly so far produced a maximum ground vibration of 0.104 inches per second with a maximum sound level of 112 dB; he said that reading was within Tennessee limits and that modern blasting methods are designed to fracture rock rather than produce fly‑rock.

Rose also described typical controls: scheduled blasting hours (he said contractors typically operate during daytime weekdays), pre‑blast audible warnings and post‑blast inspections, and the use of third‑party seismographs he said are kept “under lock and key” to preserve integrity. He told the commission that VCE had offered pre‑blast surveys to 23 residents near the site and that those surveys and monitoring records are archived.

Residents questioned several points during and after the technical presentation: whether all blasts were being recorded, how long the project would continue, whether spring and well water could be affected, and who would pay for road damage from heavy truck traffic. Commissioners and staff repeatedly said some project details had not been provided to county staff, and that specific enforcement or legal actions would require written complaints or additional documentation to trigger investigations.

Commissioners themselves voiced disagreement. Commissioner Smith criticized what he described as a lack of transparency and said the county had missed opportunities to notify neighbors and the planning commission earlier. Other commissioners warned against overreaching on private‑property rights and said they had inspected the site and seen road improvements and sediment controls. The county attorney told the commission that ethics and legal complaints must be filed in writing to trigger a formal investigation.

The meeting did not produce a formal county decision on the operation during the session reported in the transcript. Commissioners directed staff to accept documented complaints and to follow statutory processes; speakers left with differing expectations about whether the county would pursue additional enforcement or an ethics review.

Next steps identified on the record: members of the public were told how to submit written complaints for the county attorney and district attorney to review; the seismograph operator said monitoring records would be retained and offered to provide technical data to residents who requested it; and several residents said they planned to gather signatures for petitions and pursue administrative or legal remedies.