Berwick Planning Board hears widespread opposition to Two Sisters’ proposed Ridlon Road gravel pit

The Berwick Planning Board on June 25 opened a public hearing on a conditional‑use site‑plan submitted by Two Sisters Working Lands LLC for a mineral extraction operation off Ridlon Road. The applicant’s engineer said the extraction area would be 62 acres on a 156‑acre parcel, accessed by a widened woods road, and that only up to 10 acres may be ‘‘open’’ and actively worked at any given time under the DEP permitting threshold.

Kendra Marris, speaking for the applicant, described the project’s technical details, including replacing a 2‑ft culvert with an 8‑ft culvert and following DEP permitting for stream crossings and wetland fills. She said the operator expects crushing and screening equipment on site and that reclamation would require 2.5:1 side slopes loamed and reseeded. On truck volumes, Marris said the traffic memo projects an average of about 20 truck trips per day and a typical peak hour of four truck trips (described in the memo as equivalent to eight passenger cars). On noise, she said the town ordinance requires levels at or below 60 decibels at property lines and that the submitted noise memo modeled a separation of roughly 725 feet from the crusher to property lines at existing grade.

Residents packed the hearing to oppose the proposal and to press technical concerns. ‘‘This is not a minor land use change,’’ said Maya Fuller, a Ridlon‑area resident, calling the project ‘‘industrial activity’’ that would bring heavy truck traffic, noise, dust, vibration and years of disturbance to a residential and rural area. Claudia Rundlett, a Warwick Road resident, urged the board to require conditions and enforceability because of worries about safety for walkers and school buses, road deterioration, private wells and operating hours.

Public health and wildlife risks were a repeated theme. Carol Coocher, an audiologist who reviewed the applicant’s memo, questioned model assumptions and the crusher source level used in the model, warning that placement on a hill could carry noise farther than a simple buffer suggests. Multiple residents and commenters raised respirable crystalline silica from crushing as a serious long‑term health risk; the board vice chair pressed for ‘‘wet suppression systems on all conveyor belts, including the spreader and any crusher,’’ and discussed wheel‑wash and other mitigation.

On groundwater and monitoring, the applicant said the project would install seven monitoring wells and that groundwater depth and quality must be measured quarterly and reported to DEP and the town. Marris also said dust‑suppression water would be trucked in from off‑site tanker trucks, not drawn from the proposed monitoring wells.

Board members pressed the applicant on enforceability, operator accountability, and financial assurances. Several board members said a residential home‑equity line of credit listed in the application package was not an acceptable form of security for a large commercial operation; the board requested that financial guarantees and the performance bond be structured to ensure reclamation and road repair if an operator or owner defaults.

After extended public comment and a technical Q&A with the applicant, the board voted to request a limited third‑party technical review — paid for by the applicant — focused on noise, air/silica risks, traffic, hydrogeology and financial capacity. The motion passed with the board recording the vote as all in favor. The board also asked the applicant to submit written answers to public questions (to be posted on the town website) and indicated willingness to adopt stronger buffers recommended by IF&W; the applicant agreed to a 250‑ft buffer around vernal pools and a 100‑ft stream buffer for Key Brook and other streams, shrinking the extraction area by roughly seven acres in updated plans.

Next steps: the applicant will provide written responses to the public’s questions and submit revised plans incorporating agreed buffers; the Planning Board will receive a limited third‑party review and continue deliberations (the board indicated a joint meeting with the Select Board/Public Works staff to discuss off‑site road impacts and potential mitigation). The public hearing was closed for this session.

Quoted remarks in this article come from the hearing transcript and are attributed to speakers who identified themselves at the meeting.