Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board hears gravel‑pit operator’s plan for 10‑acre reclamation pond; board raises sequencing and reclamation concerns
Summary
At the July 7 meeting the operator of the Bruce White pit presented a revised plan showing a roughly 10‑acre reclamation pond within the existing pit footprint and told the board he has submitted updated plans to the state; the board pressed for DES filings, clarity on the wetland crossing, and assurance that reclamation will be secured before new phases open.
An applicant for the Bruce White gravel pit told the New Ipswich Planning Board on July 7 that an updated reclamation plan filed with the state would convert part of the exhausted pit into a roughly 10‑acre pond and that the plan has been downsized from earlier proposals.
“We were gonna go out here because this is a wetlands… material down to the water table or 4 feet above it,” the applicant said, outlining geotechnical constraints and why some areas are suitable for pond excavation while others are not.
The applicant said he submitted a revised plan to the state Department of Environmental Services (DES) and that the revised pond stays within the existing pit footprint. He described sequencing: excavation and stockpiling of material, then digging the pond; he emphasized that if digging encounters more rapid water inflow than expected, the pond scenario could become physically infeasible and the company would revert to conventional reclamation. “If it does not work out for the pond, you’ll find it fine… and reclaimed,” he said.
Board members pressed on three matters the transcript shows as central to local oversight: (1) notification and review copies of the complete state filing and maps, (2) the proposed brook crossing needed to access additional acreage and how that crossing complies with wetland and crossing requirements, and (3) how the town can ensure reclamation sequencing — and, if needed, financial security — so an open pit does not remain unreclaimed if operations extend long term.
Chair emphasized the board’s duty to confirm any state request to open new phases: “So our duty, we have never really had any kind of a reclamation bond on this property… so if they’re thinking about going into 3 and closing out 2, we have to close out 2.” The applicant said the pond, if feasible, would effectively ‘close out’ about 10 acres; he and the board discussed a potential 3–5‑year timeline to exhaust some sections under current sales rates but noted the applicant also described 20‑year horizons depending on market demand.
The applicant said the detailed submittal includes maps (a 490,000‑square‑foot footprint was cited) and that he would forward the engineer’s scaled plans to the board. The board agreed Chair would try to obtain the bound state packet and send photos so members can review the site layout before the next inspection.
No permits or formal approvals were issued at the meeting. The board asked staff to request DES materials and consider whether sequencing conditions or reclamation security are needed before the applicant proceeds to a new phase.
