Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Gravel Pit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lisbon Planning Board reviews proposed expansion of grandfathered gravel pit
Summary
At a conceptual review April 9, owners proposed expanding a grandfathered gravel pit across roughly 100 acres of a ~300-acre parcel; the board pressed for aquifer mapping, blasting notice, buffers, reclamation plans and bonding before permitting.
Lisbon — At its April 9, 2026 meeting, the Lisbon Planning Board received a conceptual presentation on a proposed expansion of an existing grandfathered gravel pit on parcels R17 Lot 7A and R16 Lot 5.
Owners Harold Lonnie and Gerard Gingue, joined by consultant Tyler Phillips of Head Waters Consulting, told the board they plan to expand excavation across roughly 100 acres of a roughly 300‑acre parcel, including removal of ledge. The applicants said they intend to seek a State Alteration of Terrain (AoT) permit and estimated the operation could run for as long as 50 years.
Board members focused on potential groundwater and neighborhood impacts. Chair Craig Myers and other members emphasized the need to identify and map aquifer boundaries; the applicants agreed to consult an expert and address well‑testing as part of permitting. Members also discussed a proposed 50‑foot buffer, noise and visual impacts to nearby residences and requested clearer mitigation plans.
Blasting and traffic drew repeated questions. The applicants agreed to provide advance notice of blasting and to implement measures to reduce debris tracking onto Route 302. The board requested clarification on truck routes, road maintenance responsibilities and internal drainage plans.
Members also discussed reclamation and bonding. The board said a reclamation plan and a financial assurance mechanism would be required; the applicants acknowledged the requirement but provided no bonding figures at the conceptual stage. Board and applicants discussed phasing and operational flexibility but did not present a detailed phased schedule.
The presentation and discussion were a conceptual review only; no permit was approved and the board did not vote on the expansion. The board requested additional technical information, including aquifer mapping and more detailed plans for blasting, buffers, traffic mitigation and reclamation, before taking further action. The meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
