Loudon County Commission approves multiple rezones despite residents' objections over landfill-adjacent CFD

The Loudon County Commission on April 6 approved a slate of zoning changes, including a community facilities district (CFD) zoning request for roughly 98 acres adjacent to the Matlock Bend area, despite objections from nearby residents who said the rezoning appears tied to a potential sale of public land and raised concerns about landfill operations.

Resident Bonnie Coffee, who identified herself as living in Matlock Bend, urged the commission to reject the CFD rezoning and asked that Commissioner Adam Waller “recuse himself entirely” from any votes or negotiations related to the property. Coffee said quarterly origin reports show the county landfill receives material from outside Loudon County and asserted that the facility’s intake totals reduce the life of the landfill, calling the site “a regional commercial disposal facility” rather than a local service for county residents.

The commission had introduced and described eight rezoning items (A through I) at the start of the meeting. Planning staff told the body that each rezoning request had been recommended by the planning commission under the applicable state zoning procedures (reference to Tennessee Code Annotated provisions for county rezoning was noted in the agenda). After public comment, the commission moved and voted on the rezones sequentially. Motions to approve the individual items were made and seconded (examples recorded in the minutes: Item A moved by Commissioner Whitfield and seconded by Commissioner Shaver; Item E moved by Commissioner James and seconded by Commissioner Randolph), and each motion carried by voice vote.

During the vote on the CFD parcel (Item E at 21884 Highway 72 North), the minutes record that one commissioner stated they were recused. The record shows the CFD rezoning carried despite the public objection and the announced recusal. Bonnie Coffee told the commission she believes the rezoning is intended to facilitate a sale of the public land and said the public has not been given adequate transparency or documentation about what will be conveyed and to whom.

Pat Hunter, another resident who spoke during the public-comment period, asked about public outreach regarding property reassessment and said her own assessment rose substantially; she also urged that public meetings or workshops be scheduled and advertised to explain potential tax impacts.

Why this matters: The CFD rezoning affects publicly owned land next to a neighborhood and a county solid-waste site, raising both land‑use and equity questions for local residents who say they were not consulted and who fear the public asset may be treated like a commercial disposal facility.

The commission’s action: The record shows the rezones were approved as individual agenda items; the vote records in the meeting transcript indicate each motion carried on the floor. The agenda packet noted planning-commission recommendations for all items. Commissioner Waller is recorded as having recused himself on at least one item.

Next steps and context: The public comment period concluded at the meeting, and no formal sale or conveyance was approved at this session; the rezoning itself changes the land-use designation, which can affect future uses or transactions. Residents seeking more information about any planned conveyance or sale will need to request the commission’s records or follow up with county staff for details that were not presented at the meeting.