image description
The City Council's Ordinance and Rules Committee supported the concept but didn't like annual registration fees.

Pittsfield Looks To Crack Down On False Burglar Alarms

By Andy McKeeveriBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story

Councilor at Large Melissa Mazzeo said the number of false alarms is 'staggering' but she disagreed with adding another fee to homeowners who have security systems.
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The Police Department is looking to crack down on false burglar alarms.
 
Chief Information Officer Mike Steben said officers responded to 1,670 false alarm calls in 2017.
 
Each response requires two officers and Steben said the majority of those calls are from businesses, and many are repeat offenders -- so much so he said, "We have a couple businesses we should just park a police cruiser there in front of them when they open."
 
He estimated a count of 45 repeat offenders, and not just repeating once or twice.
 
"On average, we're responding to roughly six false alarm calls per day in this city. That requires two officers to be dispatched," Steben said.
 
Steben and Police Lt. Michael Maddalena are proposing a change to the ordinance requiring businesses to register every year and looking to actually charge businesses for false alarms. Maddalena said there is already a fine structure in place for false alarms but for years the city couldn't collect the fines.
 
Steben said the Police Department's computer systems for fines was not connected to the city's treasury computer systems. There was no way for the treasurer and tax collector's office to create an invoice so, the department stopped issuing fines.
 
The city recently combined the information technology departments for the city and police. 
 
"Now that we've got the foundation built for the IT system, it is time to now get these systems integrated properly," Steben said.
 
Had the technology been integrated, Steben said the city would have reeled in $489,975 worth of fines in the last five years. Now with that system in place, the department is looking to recraft the false alarm ordinance to make sure its records are up to date. 
 
The proposal put forth to the City Council calls for businesses and residents with alarms to register with the city on an annual basis whereas before it was just once. Maddalena said often officers respond and the business has since moved and there is no contact for a keyholder at the location. He believes an annual registration process would help keep that information up to date.
 
However, the city councilors on the Ordinance & Rules Committee had reservations about a proposed $50 registration fee. Previously there was just a one-time $25 fee. Councilors said instituting an annual fee won't help the number of false alarm calls and instead just cost a resident or business more each year.
 
"I have a hard time with the idea of having a registration fee every year," said Ward 5 Councilor Donna Todd Rivers. "I understand the need for the registration to keep records correct ... but attaching $50 fee, then I have a problem with it."
 
Steben said that can easily be revisited. He said other municipalities charge anywhere from nothing to $75. He said he'd do a little more research to determine what an appropriate number would be for registration.
 
"This is something we are researching and going through," Steben said.
 
Ward 3 Councilor Nicholas Caccamo suggested that once the new registration process is in place that the department essentially start over. He suggested sending a letter to all of the registered businesses and if those letters go unreturned, then they'd be dropped from the list and have to re-register.
 
Steben added that he'd like to move to a web-based registration process to make it easier for businesses and residents to stay up to date.
 
The committee ultimately tabled it until a new annual fee could be proposed.

Tags: alarm system,   false alarms,   ordinance & rules ,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Lanesborough Looks to the Future of Zoning Bylaws

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff

LANESBOROUGH, Mass. — The Planning Board is reviewing the town's zoning bylaws with an eye to amending zones to align with planning documents and projects. 

Members started at last week's meeting to at priority zoning projects that align with the Open Space and Recreation Plan and the Master Plan that was adopted last year. Earlier in the meeting, the board accepted the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission's draft of the OSRP, which the Select Board accepted late last month.

Town planner Andrew Groff informed the board of upcoming projects that will need to be looked at for zoning purposes to try and stay ahead of the bylaws that aligned in both the OSRP and Master Plan.

"Principally, would be going back and thinking about this idea of a mixed-use zoning district for the northern part of town that's responsive to the growth of outdoor recreation as it is really an industry. So you've got Shaker Ridge, you've got the folks at Donnybrook that proposes a glamping resort, Ramble Wild, and Brodie Mountain just over the town line in New Ashford with some new ownership and expanded interest in some development there, so that's one item that's called for in both."

Groff also explained they need to look into agriculture zones to help local farmers 

"Seeing if we can't do something to better support our farms because we have a couple great little farm clusters in Lanesborough. You know, zoning for agriculture is pretty expansive in Massachusetts. The exemption for agriculture is pretty wise, but we want to take a closer look and talk to some of our farmers and figure out there's some tweaks we can do that would make their lives easier."

He also brought up how they can help fix the zoning bylaws around the lake that are nonconforming and want to look into grant funding to help.

"Work that's going to be done to further protect Pontoosuc Lake, and we have a lot in our master plan regarding the zoning issues on Pontoosuc from the issue that you had mentioned to me, bringing back the citizens who were concerned about building heights down there, but you know, more fundamentally identified in the master plan is the problems with how everything is basically nonconforming. The zoning doesn't conform to what the actual built environment is. That's something we probably want to look into talking with folks in the community planning office," he said.

Groff mentioned there is a ballot question that, if it passes, would mean changing zoning regarding public water and sewer, and affect properties near the lake. 

"There is going to be on the ballot in November a question that will essentially require any community in Massachusetts that has built an environment that's on public water/sewer, you're going to have to reduce your lot sizes to 5,000 square feet. So I feel like if that passes, that has massive implications for that part of town. So, just another one to put out there, but maybe we want to wait to really tackle that with some grant funding once we know what the Legislature's done."

Chair Leanne Yinger said she lives in that area and it already seems very congested, meaning that the passage of the ballot question could have big implications.

She also mentioned another implication for the health of the lake she would like to see happen.

"I would like to see us ban pesticides and people treating their lawns," she said. "Part of the problem of the health of the lake is that when I say that out loud, and I'm saying it out loud to anybody who will listen to me, it is not a popular thing to say. But it is killing the lake."

Yinger said she would like to clarify who governs the sewer system around Pontoosuc Lake, noting the new owner of a friend's house needed to purchase access to the sewer from a private party. Groff said he couldn't remember if it is water district or town, but that there is something "funky" about the governance over there.

"I need to understand what that looks like, because the way it came down was interesting. The line comes in from Pittsfield, but there are people claiming that they have rights to it because they bought into it originally. I just want to understand what that's like and who's saying you're in charge with it, because it seems to me that that's a town-managed situation," Yinger said.

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories