Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gravel Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission revokes cease-and-desist for longstanding pit after dispute over 1,500-cubic-yard threshold
Summary
After prolonged debate about whether the town's 1,500-cubic-yard rule is annual or lifetime, the commission voted unanimously to lift a cease-and-desist for a longstanding gravel site and required the owner to track future removals and update filings.
The Thompson Planning & Zoning Commission on June 22 revoked a cease-and-desist order that had been issued to an owner operating a long-used gravel area, concluding that the matter should be handled with recordkeeping and continuing oversight rather than an enforcement prohibition.
The dispute centered on how to read a section of the town’s earth‑sand‑and‑gravel provisions that references "excavation, removal, filling or grading of a total amount up to 1,500 cubic yards." Commissioners and participants disagreed whether "total" referred to an annual threshold (staff and several commissioners) or to cumulative historical removal (the owner). After reviewing a site visit, historic use, and the ordinance language, the commission voted to revoke the cease-and-desist and directed staff to send a certified letter lifting the order and to notify the wetlands commission.
Owner and site use: The property representative stated the recent activity was being used to maintain internal roads and argued it did not constitute an export-oriented gravel operation. "I got a cease and desist order about two weeks ago," the owner told the commission, then described the current yardage as well under the 1,500-cubic-yard figure when read on an annual basis.
Staff response and conditions: Planning staff said the enforcement action was issued based on her reading of the ordinance and described the basis for the notice. The commission did not reinstate a permit condition immediately; rather it asked the owner to keep records of material removed and to cease using a previously cited trade name on filings. The chair said he would forward the revocation letter to the owner and to wetlands staff.
Why it matters: The commission's decision clarifies (for now) how the town intends to treat long-used pits where historical extraction exists. The ruling places the emphasis on monitoring and annual reporting rather than a blanket prohibition, but the differing statutory readings flagged by multiple commissioners suggest the town may need an explicit code interpretation or a formal ordinance amendment to avoid future disputes.
Next steps: Chair will mail the certified revocation letter to the owner and forward documentation to the wetlands commission; staff and commissioners agreed the owner must track and make available removal records going forward.
