Residents of Bridgton are fighting against the approval of a quarry that they claim would create loud noise and damage the local environment.

An application for a quarry, which would be the first of its kind in Bridgton, was submitted on behalf of the R. Rolfe Corp. on May 23, 2024. Following several meetings, as well as a public site walk where oral and written comments from the public were accepted, Bridgton’s Planning Board rendered a final approval of the quarry on Nov. 5.

The project has received a mixed reception from Bridgton residents. Critics are concerned about pollution and environmental impact, unwanted noise and violation of property rights, noting that the quarry is within 1 mile of both Moose Pond and 600 homes. Supporters, on the other hand, say that the project is an approved use, and that, according to a Planning Board document, “qualified consultants have provided evidence that noise and dust emissions will be within acceptable local, state and federal limits.”

A document from the Planning Board states that Bridgton’s Mixed-Use Corridor district, in which the quarry is to be located, allows for mineral extraction, and that the Rural Neighborhood District, which contains several properties that would abut the quarry, allows for mineral extraction in the area “if developed in a manner sensitive to the objective of the areas.”

An appeal was then filed against the quarry’s approval. A group of Bridgton residents alleged that the Planning Board was not doing honest service to the people because the quarry was against the character of Bridgton, and residents were being deprived of protections under the law. Both Rural Neighborhood District residents and representatives of the Rolfe Corp. attended the most recent Appeals Board meeting to make their cases on Jan. 21.

Attorney Jeffrey Bennett, representing a Rural Neighborhood District resident, laid out his client’s case. He explained that the presence of the quarry would cause the values of nearby properties to drop dramatically (30% for properties within a half-mile), leading homeowners to apply for a reevaluation of their tax bill. This, according to him, would lead to the town losing millions in revenue annually, totaling in the tens of millions over the 20-year lifespan of the quarry, severely depleting Bridgton’s tax base.

“In exchange for the minimal gains of allowing this quarry to go forward … there is a gigantic tax risk to the town, if everyone comes forward and seeks a reevaluation,” Bennett said.

According to Bennett’s client, there are inconsistencies within the town code pertaining to the quarry. The town’s land use code states, whenever there are inconsistencies of conflicts within the code “the more restrictive section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase controls.” Bennett alleged that, because the Planning Board had gone with the less restrictive section of the code by allowing the quarry, the decision was inconsistent with the town’s comprehensive plan, containing substantial errors of law, and urged the Planning Board to reverse their decision.

Mark Bower, a lawyer representing the Rolfe Corp., argued that the Planning Board’s substantial findings meant that the approval was not “arbitrary and capricious,” as the resident’s lawyer had alleged. He said that it was unclear if the appellant was trying to challenge the decision or the mineral ordinance, noting that mineral extraction, including quarries, was explicitly allowed in the mixed-use neighborhood. Bower also noted that the maximum limit for annual extraction, according to the ordinance, was 100,000 cubic yards, and said that Rolfe would abide by this limit.

Regarding the issue of compatibility with the comprehensive plan, he noted that the plan described growing interest in reestablishing Bridgton as a regional commercial hub. These plans, Bower said, would require a great deal of aggregate, which the quarry would provide, and he also claimed that, once the quarry’s lifetime had ended, the site could be used as a business office park, recreational facility, or for housing, citing the similar development of the Rock Row neighborhood in Westbrook. On the issue of loud noise caused by rock drilling, a major complaint of residents, he said that the Planning Board had made several recommendations on mitigation, and that the quarry would be taking measures to keep the volume within the town’s 70-decibel limit.

After the three-hour hearing, the Appeals Board came to the decision that the Planning Board did not err in deciding that the quarry was consistent with the comprehensive plan. Another Appeals Board meeting will be held on Thursday, Feb. 27, where the board will consider whether to reverse the Planning Board’s decision on the quarry.

When asked for comment by the Lakes Region Weekly, the Bridgton Code Enforcement Office said that, due to the legal proceedings, they could not comment on the situation at this time.