Resident urges Loudon City to enforce erosion controls after repeated sediment flows onto Matlock Bend properties

Chris Kirby, a 45-year resident and local construction business owner, told the Loudon City Council on Jan. 26 that repeated land-disturbing activity by a nearby development has sent sediment and silt onto his Matlock Bend Road property and into the Tennessee River, damaging a meter box, covering his barn floor in mud and threatening his property values.

Kirby told the council he had documented multiple events, including a July opening of an access drive and at least two major washouts in September. "They put 4 to 6 inches of red clay silt from the top of my property ... 750 feet to the Tennessee River, a 75 foot wide swath," he said, showing photographs and a state inspection report he said was prepared by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC).

Why it matters: Kirby said the work proceeded outside the limits of approved disturbance and that the city code and the state threshold for triggering a grading permit appear inconsistent. He asked the council to require the developer and general contractor to retain stormwater on site, complete civil engineering plans for the disturbed slopes, and stop work until that is done.

Council response: Mayor Jeff Harris acknowledged the complaint and asked staff to follow up. Council discussion referenced a TDEC inspection and a reported lack of coverage under Tennessee’s Construction General Permit for the area in question. Staff and council members said they would investigate enforcement options and clarify which portions fall under county versus city responsibility, and emphasized codes enforcement as the staff contact for follow-up.

What was said (selected quotes): "Make them retain their water, please," Kirby told the council. He also described an inspection finding that "coverage of the Tennessee construction general permit had not been obtained for the area in question." Mayor Harris told Kirby, "We've got your information. Thanks for coming."

Details reported by the resident: Kirby described multiple concrete impacts — a meter box that caved in, 3–6 inches of silt across equipment and his barn floor, multiple episodes of runoff that carried rock and mulch to the river, and a remediation plan discussed with TDEC and contractors. He said the contractor operated outside the limits shown on accepted project plans and that a planned retention pond was located on a flat area separate from the slope that had been cleared.

Next steps: Councilmembers asked staff to look into the incident and coordinate with state inspectors; Travis Gray (codes enforcement) and other staff were identified as contacts who would investigate whether work exceeded permitted limits and what enforcement or remedial orders could be issued. No formal enforcement action was recorded at the meeting.

Context: The resident repeatedly referenced city development code section 9 (erosion and sediment control standards) and said that the city's documentation sometimes lists a 1-acre threshold while other local documents indicate 3 acres, creating confusion about when a grading permit is required. Kirby said he had raised the matter with county commissioners before bringing it to the city council.

What remains unresolved: While Kirby presented photographic and state inspection evidence and said TDEC had documented violations, the council did not record any immediate formal enforcement action at the Jan. 26 meeting; staff follow-up and any ensuing orders, fines or permit changes remain pending.

The council is scheduled to return for a workshop in February; the matter was left for staff follow-up pending further review and potential coordination with TDEC.