Residents and commissioners press county on Matlock Bend rezoning and enforcement

Public commenter Blake Moore told the Loudon County Commission workshop that residents deserve clear answers about a proposed rezoning of county-owned land near the Matlock Bend landfill, saying state rules treat borrow pits as construction activity and a separate CFD permit from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) is not required for soil extraction.

“We still own the landfill. The power is still 100% in your hands,” Blake Moore said, urging commissioners to explain why the county is pursuing a rezoning from A-1 agricultural to CFD if state stormwater controls would apply to borrow pits.

Moore pressed for transparency about possible financial motives, asking whether the county’s Financial Advisory Committee had evaluated revenue or liability effects if the land is rezoned and soil sales or other uses were enabled. He also cited TDEC guidance that borrow pits qualify as construction activities subject to stormwater permits and a notice-of-intent process rather than a separate CFD extraction permit.

During Moore’s remarks someone in the meeting disputed his ownership characterization by saying the Solid Waste Commission owns the landfill outright; that exchange left ownership and control points contested in the room and was not resolved during public comment.

Later in the agenda staff described the specific rezoning request (item E) for parcels on Highway 72 North tied to borrow-pit activity. Staff said the proposed rezoning would include new conditions intended to protect neighbors: a 400-foot buffer in the highway corridor, 200-foot side and rear buffers for bordering properties, a restriction that the area from Matlock Bend to the top of the ridge cannot be disturbed or accessed, a prohibition on using Highway 72 to transport material from the borrow pit into the landfill, limits on pavement extension, and relocation of the scale house and wheel wash farther from the current asphalt.

Pat Hunter, a resident who spoke during public comment, said the county’s contract with Santek/Republic has not fully resolved litter and mud issues near the site and asked how the county will enforce the rezoning conditions if it cannot directly enforce the private contract. “What I want to know is how will this be enforced?” Hunter asked.

Staff responded that enforcement would come through the county planning office and site-plan review, and noted Solid Waste Commission actions that could change ownership of small tracts; staff said that if violations occur the county could pursue zoning enforcement, including legal action if necessary.

No vote was taken on the rezoning at the workshop. Staff said the rezoning items, including item E, will be placed on the commission’s April 6 meeting agenda for formal action. The record shows residents asking for clarity on whether the rezoning is necessary given state permitting, how contractual obligations with the landfill operator intersect with county zoning powers, and what enforcement tools the county will use if conditions are violated.