Camden Told B&M It Was Expected to Follow Mine Permit; Residents Still Await Enforcement Answers

Story Status: Continuing
Last Updated: Sept. 1, 2026

SOUTH MILLS, N.C. — Residents along Ponderosa Road continue reporting truck traffic, dust and other conditions covered by a sand-mine permit that Camden County said B&M Investments was expected to follow during its appeal.

What happens after residents file those complaints is less clear.

A March 16 letter from Camden County counsel Lauren T. Arizaga-Womble said the County would treat B&M’s appeal as staying enforcement of the Board of Commissioners’ permit revocation. The same letter said B&M was still expected to comply with the conditions of Special Use Permit 2016-08-10.

Four months later, County Manager Erin Burke told residents that pending litigation left her unable to take enforcement action.

“Given the nature of the pending litigation and legal actions available to the County at this time, I am unable to provide comment or take enforcement action.”

Burke’s July 24 email did not say whether the County would continue investigating complaints, documenting possible violations or notifying B&M of conditions reported while the case proceeds.

Questions sent to Camden County on Aug. 30 sought that distinction. No response from County counsel had been received by publication.

Residents continue using the complaint process

Camden County’s Unified Development Ordinance assigns enforcement responsibility to the UDO administrator, building inspector, code-enforcement officer, and other designated employees.

Section 9.7.1 says that when the UDO administrator receives a written and signed complaint alleging a violation, the appropriate official “shall investigate the violation allegation.” The ordinance also says the complainant must be told whether a violation was found and, if so, what action the County will take.

Burke’s July email addressed enforcement action. It did not say whether that investigation requirement is also affected by the litigation.

Residents have continued submitting complaints.

A written code-enforcement complaint sent Aug. 26 alleged dust crossing onto neighboring property and the absence of the vegetative buffer required by the permit. The complaint referenced the March 16 letter and asked the County to address the reported permit conditions.

Residents have also continued documenting traffic.

A Ponderosa Road resident who asked not to be identified supplied a handwritten log covering Aug. 24 through Aug. 28. The resident initially reported 634 trucks, then corrected the figure to 624 individual commercial truck passages.

Entering and departing vehicles were counted separately. The resident said the log was compiled daily from home-security-camera footage.

The underlying footage has not been independently reviewed. The figure therefore represents the resident’s documented count, not 624 unique trucks or 624 complete truck visits.

The first entry recorded on each of the five weekdays fell between approximately 5:25 and 5:58 a.m.

Special Use Permit 2016-08-10 lists operating hours from April through October as 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. It also states that private vehicles have the right-of-way on Ponderosa Road.

A commercial truck passing a residence before 7 a.m. does not by itself establish that mine operations occurred outside permitted hours. The resident says the early traffic was associated with the mine, but individual vehicle destinations and the underlying video have not been independently verified.

The resident also reported waiting behind four exiting trucks on Aug. 24. Another resident was reported to have waited for three trucks on Aug. 28. Those accounts have not been independently verified.

Similar complaints are already part of the County record

The subjects residents are raising now are not new to Camden County’s records.

A September 2025 Notice of Violation cited road maintenance, truck speeds, private-vehicle right-of-way, fencing, vegetative buffering and operations outside permitted hours. County staff wrote at the time that the operating-hours condition had been “repeatedly violated.”

After hearings in January, commissioners voted to revoke the permit. The Board found, among other things, that B&M had not complied with conditions requiring fencing and vegetative buffering.

B&M disputed significant parts of the County’s case. The hearing record says B&M argued that the fence and buffer requirements could not be completed as written without affecting neighboring property rights. Its attorney also said the operators had spent money improving Ponderosa Road and had offered to pave it and install fencing and buffering if the necessary cooperation could be obtained.

B&M later challenged Camden County’s actions in state and federal court. A federal judge denied the company’s request for an emergency temporary restraining order in February but did not decide the merits of B&M’s underlying claims.

Residents still lack a clear answer on what happens next

The March 16 letter said B&M remained expected to comply with the permit. Burke’s July email said she could not take enforcement action because of the pending litigation. The County ordinance separately says signed complaints alleging violations shall be investigated.

No public response has yet explained how those three pieces fit together for a resident filing a complaint today.

The Aug. 30 inquiry asks whether the March position remains in effect, whether written complaints are still being investigated, and whether a later court order, statute, stay, or injunction prevents the County from acting on individual permit conditions.

It also asks the County to distinguish enforcement of the Board’s permit revocation from investigation or enforcement of the conditions under which the operation continues.

Board Chairman Jason Banks previously wrote in an August email that he and other commissioners would not comment on pending litigation. That statement came during an earlier interview exchange and was not made in response to the latest Ponderosa Road complaints.

What Happens Next

A public-records request seeks complaints, inspection records, site visits, enforcement notes, and correspondence concerning reported conditions at the mine since March 16.

Those records could show whether complaints continued to be investigated after Burke’s July statement and whether Camden County documented any reported permit violations while enforcement action was unavailable.

Any County response or later court order that materially changes the current enforcement picture will be added to this report.