Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Acquisition topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board recommends city buy 6 Sand Hill Road as new Public Works fill site

2996594 · April 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Lewiston Planning Board voted 6–1 to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the acquisition of a 4.47-acre parcel at 6 Sand Hill Road to serve as a municipal fill site for Public Works operations.

The Lewiston Planning Board voted 6–1 to recommend that the City Council purchase the 4.47-acre parcel at 6 Sand Hill Road for use as a municipal fill site, saying the location would serve Public Works when the city’s current site reaches capacity.

Public Works Director Kevin Gonyea told the board the city has used a River Road fill site but expects it to be full in about a year and needs another place to stockpile soils from catch-basin cleanings, ditch work and emergency repairs. "We have been using the fill site currently on River Road and we expected it to last longer than it did," Gonyea said. "Fill sites around the city have been hard to find."

The property at 6 Sand Hill Road has been used for years as a gravel lot by St. Lawrence and Sons, the staff report said; the parcel is 4.47 acres. The assessed value listed in the packet is $11,200, a city staff member noted; the packet also cautioned assessed value is not the same as asking price and that negotiation details will be handled in executive session. The board was clear the purchase recommendation does not set a purchase price.

Board members asked about the kinds of material that would be allowed at the site, hours and impacts on neighbors. Gonyea said the city would take maintenance and emergency materials—catch-basin cleanings, street sweepings and soils from water-main breaks that are not suitable for reuse in road backfill—but would not accept contaminated materials such as oil- or fuel‑soaked soils. He described the intended operations as limited and usually internal to city crews. On hours, he said the city would use normal work hours except for true emergencies such as a winter water-main break.

Board member Mark Roy raised concerns about slope, runoff and erosion on the parcel’s ledge face; Gonyea said the city engineer reviewed contours and volumes and proposed side slopes of 2:1 and stepped construction of the fill to create stable plateaus and avoid off‑site erosion. Roy also asked whether the current fill site would be used until it is full; Gonyea confirmed it would.

Chair Shanna Cox asked for a motion. One board member moved "pursuant to Article 8, Section 4(h) of the zoning and land use code to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the acquisition of 6 Sand Hill Road with no conditions." The motion was seconded and passed on a roll call vote: Roger Dupree, Lucy Bisson, Mark Roy, Shanna Cox, Amy Smith and Alex Pine voted yes; Michael Marcotte voted no. The board’s recommendation now goes to City Council, and staff said any final purchase price and negotiation details will be handled in executive session with counsel.

What’s next: City staff will present the recommendation and the negotiating position to the City Council for funding and final approval; an executive session with counsel was mentioned as part of the council process. No purchase contract was finalized at the Planning Board meeting.