Dalton Planning Board Approves Ray Robert Special Permit

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
DALTON, Mass. — After revisions, community comment, and deliberations that required three meetings to complete, the Planning Board voted last week to approve the special permit for Ray Robert Excavation & Trucking.  
 
Owner Ray Robert had requested a new special permit to improve clarity of its conditions and to extend his operating and crushing hours. 
 
The new special permit would grant heavy industrial use in the Planned Industrial Development District.
 
The board approved increasing Saturday's hours of operation, including screening, separating and crushing to 8 a.m. until 2 p.m. 
 
The hours of operation for the crushing of asphalt, brick and concrete are subject to the state Department of Environmental Protection requirements that do not allow them on Saturdays. 
 
The DEP only permits crushing of these materials on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Vice Chairman Zack R. McCain III said. 
 
During deliberations, the Planning Board reworded Section 6 to clarify the definition of the work being done on the property during hour of operations 
 
Residents said during the previous meeting that the wording was too broad. Board members agreed during deliberations and revised it. 
 
Section 6 now says heavy manufacturing operations are "defined to be the activities undertaken in relation to the applicant's heavy manufacture of earthen material products business and the related accessory uses; including but not limited to crushing, screening, moving of product or construction of structures to hold product." 
 
"Site maintenance and machine repair are excluded as operations. The maintenance and repair activities would nonetheless be subject to the Dalton Noise Bylaw."
 
The board revised Section 11 to say there shall not be interference with the current drainage of Green Ridge development and other adjacent properties. The wording did not previously include "other adjacent properties."
 
Planning Board member Jarred Mongeon recommended that the special permit include requiring the implementation of a camera system that would demonstrate that work is only during the permitted hours. 
 
This recommendation stems from previous comments made that it was unclear where the noise disturbances were coming from due to the operations of abutting businesses. 
 
Board members agreed that having cameras is best practice, but they did not include it as a requirement because it is an added expense. 
 
Based on site visits and the number of revisions to permit, Robert has spent a lot of money over the last few years to comply with the permit and "bending over backwards, in my opinion" to help the neighbors, Chair Andrew Perenick said. 
 
Board members also did not want to make the inclusion of cameras in the specials permit because although cameras, such as the Ring: Home Security Systems, are an added "layer of security," "fairly cheap," and user friendly, they are reliant on wi-fi, which can be another added cost. 
 
Although the board voted not to include cameras in the special permit Robert said in a follow up that he will consider implementing a camera system for his own security and peace of mind. 
 
The board also approved removing Section 8 of the special permit because board members felt it did not apply to the purpose of the special permit. 
 
Section 8 would have required that the entrance of the property be secured beyond the hours of operation, specifically to restrict access to the manufacturing area. 
 
According to the town's legal counsel, Joel Bard of KP Law, documents and comments were not permitted during the meeting on Wednesday at the Senior Center as public comment was closed during the meeting in October.
 
The board approved requiring that the permit be renewed on Dec. 18 of next year. 
 
Resident comments can be found from our articles in October and November. 

Tags: special permit,   

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

Pittsfield Subcommittee Considers E-Bike Safety

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Some city councilors want to explore ways to encourage safe e-bike use. 

On Monday, the Ordinances and Rules Subcommittee discussed the request by Councilor At Large Kathy Amuso and Ward 3 Councilor Matthew Wrinn to increase enforcement of bicycle and e-bike use on Pittsfield streets, install signage in high-traffic areas, and launch an educational program for kids. 

Amuso has received reports of kids riding motorized bikes at 15 to 20 mph on the sidewalk while people are trying to back out of their driveways, and she fears someone might get hurt.  

She said that if they could start with some basics, such as riding with traffic in bike lanes and requiring operators under 16 to wear helmets, it would address most of the calls. 

"Do I think we need to put 10 police on trying to find e-bikes throughout the city? I don't," she said. "But there are enough calls that I'm getting, and other councilors are getting, that we have to say, ‘OK, what can we do?’ And we have a lot of bike lanes in Pittsfield, and the e-bikes and all bikes should be in the bike lanes, not on the sidewalk."

The petition was tabled so that the Department of Public Works can study it and gather further information.  

In Massachusetts, an e-bike with a top speed of 20 mph and a motor of 750 watts or less is classified as a traditional bicycle. State law defines two e-bike classes: 

  • "Class 1 electric bicycle" is defined as having a motor of 750 watts or less that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to assist when the bicycle reaches 20 mph.
     
  • "Class 2 electric bicycle" is defined as having a motor of 750 watts or less that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle and is not capable of assisting when the bicycle reaches 20 mph.

Riders 16 years or younger must wear a helmet by law.  

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories