South Thomaston planning board tables request to increase quarry blasts after neighbors report damage and ask for more data

The South Thomaston Planning Board voted May 15 to table an application by Travis Wilson Construction Company to amend rock-quarry blasting limits, citing insufficient data about past blasts and potential impacts.

The applicant told the board he is seeking to increase the allowable number of blasts per year to five while putting a cap on the total annual material produced so the operation can generate different rock sizes. "We're not looking to produce more material, just we need to produce different types of material," the applicant said, explaining different blast patterns produce crushable rock versus larger wall rock.

Neighbors at the meeting urged caution. "I had some plumbing damage ... $1,600," a resident said, saying they had documented damage they attributed to the Feb. 5 blast and had not yet received a promised claims form from town staff. Bill Baddy, who identified himself as a deacon at Harmony Bible Church, said he had not seen blast or seismic data and asked the town to make monitoring records available. "Actually I haven't seen any data," Baddy said.

Town attorney Kristen Collins advised the board it did not have enough evidence to make the legal findings required under the town's conditional-use and performance standards. "We don't have enough data about the blasting that occurred already in front of the board and we don't have enough data about what the impacts of this would be," Collins said, recommending the board request additional information and expert analysis before voting.

At the meeting the board compiled a list of materials it will request from the applicant, including a professional blasting plan (charges, spacing and projected yields), full blast reports and seismic readings for prior blasts, locations and results of groundwater testing, documentation of observed property impacts and pre/post inspections, accounting of truck trips and traffic impacts, and attendance by the blasting company to explain how to interpret reports. A board member summarized a rough traffic estimate discussed during the hearing: if five blasts produce roughly 60,000 cubic yards a year and an 18-cubic-yard truck is used, the operation could generate about 3,333 round trips per year or about 13 round trips per workday.

Residents also raised procedural concerns: several said they had not received consistent certified notices in earlier phases of permitting (the town confirmed it now sends certified letters to abutters within 500 feet), and some said the applicant previously represented the operation would primarily supply his own business rather than be sold to the public. Board members said those distinctions could affect impacts such as truck trips and were relevant to the conditional-use review.

Given the outstanding technical and documentary questions and a pending select-board proposal for a six-month moratorium on mineral extraction that will be discussed at a town meeting in mid-June, the Planning Board moved to table the application pending receipt and review of the requested information. The motion to table passed on a roll call recorded in the transcript as "three to one".

The board also conducted a conflict-of-interest check in response to a public comment alleging bias by one member and voted to find no disqualifying bias so that member could continue participating. A separate agenda item for another applicant (McNab) was also tabled because the applicant was not present. The board agreed to schedule follow-up consideration at its next meeting, currently set for June 19; the select-board moratorium vote on June 17 could pause or nullify any permit approval depending on its terms.

The meeting record indicates several claimed and documented items the board expects to review, including a February blast yield listed in a blast report as 8,284.2 cubic yards and at least one resident's claim of $1,600 in plumbing damage. The board asked the applicant to provide the data and for the blasting company to attend the next meeting to answer technical questions.

The application remains tabled pending the applicant's submission of the requested materials and any action by the select board on the proposed moratorium.