Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Blasting Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Monroe commission to stop extensions of blasting-related permit at 125 Gardener Road
Summary
A nearby property owner told the Monroe Planning & Zoning Commission he was not notified after the commission again extended work that allows blasting at 125 Gardener Road and asked that no further extensions be granted; staff said excavation/fill permits (which can include blasting/crushing) were extended while the state issues blasting permits.
Steve Kersh, a homeowner on Applegate Lane, told the Monroe Planning & Zoning Commission at its June 18 meeting that he recently learned the commission had "once again extended the blasting permit for 125 Gardener Road" and asked that the town not extend it again. Kersh said he was not notified of the extension and described living near the site for 33 years, reporting property impacts and a strong blast in May.
Kersh said he has a monitor placed on his property for blasting notifications and that he was surprised to learn of the extension only within the last day: "I just learned recently, like within the last day or so, that in a recent meeting that you all had, you once again extended the blasting permit for 125 Gardener Road. And I don't frankly understand why." He told the commission he wanted neighborhood notice if the commission considers further action.
Commissioners and staff responded that the permit extended by the commission was an excavation and fill permit, not the separate state blasting permit executed by the fire marshal, but acknowledged the two are related. The chair and staff said the town permits crushing and blasting as part of excavation and fill approvals; staff also stated that property owners are notified of scheduled blasting events but that state agency permits are issued outside the town's permitting role.
Kersh described an earlier incident he believes involved material from the site damaging his vehicle and said the May blast "was especially strong," citing comments from the monitor retriever. He pressed the commission to honor earlier commitments reportedly made when the original two‑year permit was issued that there would be no extensions.
No formal motion or vote was taken on the blasting‑permit question at the meeting. Staff suggested Kersh review meeting minutes and public records to confirm past commitments and said notification practice for blasts (notice of individual blast dates) differs from notice of permit extensions. The commission did not announce any immediate change to its permitting practice at the meeting and directed no formal next steps on the record.
