Dalton Zoning Denies Berkshire Concrete's Appeal for Dig Site

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
DALTON, Mass. — The Zoning Board maintained its decision that Berkshire Concrete's unauthorized dig site on parcel No. 105-16 needs to be fully remediated or covered to abide by town bylaws.
 
In October, the board voted that Berkshire Concrete violated zoning bylaw 350-61 Section E. Restoration. A decision that Petricca Industries, the parent company of Berkshire Concrete, appealed.
 
During the appeal's public hearing last week, Berkshire Concrete's attorney, Dennis Egan Jr. of Cohen Kinne Valicenti & Cook LLP, argued that the restoration requirements and the enforcement order were incorrectly applied, given the history and current status of its permits.
 
Egan said the zoning bylaws are not applicable because the property is a pre-existing, nonconforming use, established before zoning bylaws existed. Berkshire Concrete operations began in 1947 and zoning was adopted in 1951.
 
Additionally, a special permit issued in 1992 encompasses the entire property. Berkshire Concrete renews this permit every two years, specifying which parcels will be mined during that period.
 
The parcel causing the most contention 105-16 was not included in its special permit renewal application due to a "clerical error" resulting in abutters not being notified.
 
At the advice of town counsel, all work stopped, and Berkshire Concrete was required to reapply for this permit under this parcel number.
 
The public hearing on this matter was continued to allow Berkshire Concrete time to gather that information. More information here.
 
 
Egan claimed that while specific operations on parcel 105-16 ceased, this was not "voluntary" because of orders by the town.
 
The board's previous justification for their initial determination was because operations were voluntarily stopped once the cease-and-desist order had been sent.
 
Attendees against the appeal said that according to town bylaws, restoration of the affected parcel is mandatory upon cessation, voluntary or otherwise.
 
"This bylaw shall not apply to a removal operation which is subject of an official, valid permit or license issued in writing prior to the effective date of this bylaw, or which is being conducted in compliance with requirements of a subdivision plan approved by the planning board," Select Board member Anthony "Tony" Pagliarulo quoted the town's bylaws.
 
"So in fact, it was not an approved permit. Consequently, the bylaw is in effect in terms of restoration."
During the meeting, attendees highlighted how the pit is covered with snow which has helped mitigate the sand leaving the parcel but that will not always be they case.
 
They also reiterated their concerns surrounding the pit including its impact on property values, the environment, and public health.
 
Egan argued that the Zoning Board of Appeals lacks the authority to enforce restoration and said he believed responsibility lies with the Planning Board, particularly since Berkshire Concrete is currently seeking permit renewal through that board.
 
Those against the appeal expressed distrust in Berkshire Concrete's intentions and past behavior, calling for the board to enforce immediate cleanup and not be swayed by pending applications.
The board unanimously voted to uphold its initial decision.
 
"I don't really see how anything has changed. They dug without a valid permit. It should be remediated," said Caleb Darby, board vice chair.
 
They also noted that even if the planning board gave future permission for the parcel, it would not affect the current denial.
 
"They neglected, or they at least didn't put it on the application and they went and did it, and then it created the problem," board Chair Anthony Doyle said.
 
"Whether or not that cease and desist order constitutes a voluntary cessation of activity, it seems to me that they had to cease…It's still a problem and that they have to remediate it."

Tags: ZBA,   berkshire concrete,   dust, debris,   

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

Pittsfield: No E-Bikes on Sidewalk

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff

PITTSFIELD, Mass.— The city will place signage downtown to remind people that e-bikes are not allowed on the sidewalk. 

On Monday, the Ordinances and Rules subcommittee heard an update about e-bike enforcement in response to a petition from Councilor at Large Kathy Amuso and Ward 3 Councilor Matthew Wrinn. 

Commissioner of Public Services and Utilities Ricardo Morales confirmed that under Massachusetts law, it is illegal for any motorized bicycle, regardless of the class, to ride on the sidewalk. 

"So, at this point, we will start installing some signage in the North Street area," he reported. 

"Doing so for the whole city is going to be very cumbersome, and we're not going to be doing that, but I think there's something to be done in terms of education and outreach and enforcement citywide for that."

Pittsfield has begun to develop what that signage will look like in the downtown corridor. Amuso has received many complaints about the North Street and Elm Street areas; Morales said they could work to locate some key spots on Elm Street for signage. 

"I know it's a citywide problem, but I think if we start on North Street and work our way out and come up with a plan, that would be good," she said. 

The councilors petitioned 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. 

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories