Planning Board Continues Berkshire Concrete Hearing

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
DALTON, Mass. — The Planning Board again voted to continue the public hearing for Berkshire Concrete's excavation permit despite opposition from neighbors. 
 
The hearing was continued to Jan. 21 with the stipulation that Berkshire Concrete, a subsidiary of Petricca Industries, have all its documents submitted to the town 10 business days prior to the next meeting. 
 
"We have two roads to take — one helps keep us with the ability to put more useful and adamant conditions on the permit, and the other one gives us a year and eight months to figure out what we would like to add to the information," Planning Board Vice Chair Robert Collins said. 
 
Following the board's last request in November for more updated, accurate, and clear plans, Berkshire Concrete requested a continuance of the public hearing to allow them time to gather that information. 
 
"In response to questions and comments from the Planning Board [at the November meeting Berkshire Concrete] has engaged Foresite Land Services to provide, among other items, an updated plan of land. In addition, my office has begun preparing information that is responsive to questions and comments presented [during the November meeting," Berkshire Concrete's attorney, Dennis Egan Jr. of Cohen Kinne Valicenti & Cook LLP, wrote to the board.  
 
"Based on the lead time required by Foresite to prepare the updated plan of land approximately six weeks) [Berkshire Concrete] will not be prepared to present the requested information to the Planning Board at its hearing scheduled for Wednesday, December 17, 2025." 
 
Berkshire Concrete applied for a special permit to renew its current permit and continue excavation on the unauthorized dig site on parcel 105-16, which was partially mitigated, and continue the work up toward Renee Drive, on parcels 101-25 and 105-12. 
 
It was explained to attendees that based on the current state law denying the continuance would allow Berkshire Concrete to maintain its operations under the existing permit until 2027. This permit does not include the contentious 105-16 parcel. 
 
By approving the continuation, the board has the opportunity to impose additional or revised conditions on the operation, planners said. 
 
Several residents requested that the permit be denied, saying Berkshire Concrete had repeatedly failed to submit all required application materials, which they believe should have been done from the beginning. 
 
"I would say ultimately, tonight, you deny the permit, you control the narrative they really want to excavate, they really do on 105-16 and go around the lake to the north," Clean Air Coalition member David Pugh said.
 
"For all the negative issues we've raised, they need to get their act together. They really need to put forth some work and submit a proper application to the town." 
 
During the November meeting, Planning Board members expressed confusion around Berkshire Concrete's plans because of inconsistencies in the documentation and its vagueness. 
 
They also reviewed the recommendations made by the town's consultant Berkshire Environmental Consultants, which determined the dust mitigation plan as insufficient. 
 
Attendees also emphasized what they have said at several meetings — that the dust is a nuisance, and believed to be, by residents, an environmental concern and health risk. 
 
"Planning board members have a chance to make history. History here! In a perfect world, you wouldn't be faced with this issue of sand pollution," resident Ronald Griffin said.
 
"It would be heroic if this board stood up to Berkshire Concrete and said, ‘No more. We care more about our town residents and their health — that's our priority.'" 
 
Residents also claimed that Berkshire Concrete has not been neighborly, like they claim to strive for. Rather, residents said they have continuously "disrespected" the town and the time invested by various boards, citing the lack of complete remediation of the unauthorized digsite.
 
Several community members attended multiple meetings in an effort to find a resolution and as a result, the Zoning Board of Appeals determined that Berkshire Concrete is in violation of town bylaws. The board ordered Berkshire Concrete to fully remediate the site. Berkshire Concrete has appealed this determination.
 
There will be a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on Jan. 6 to determine if Berkshire Concrete needs to reclaim the rest of parcel 105-16.

Tags: berkshire concrete,   dust, debris,   excavation,   Planning Board,   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