image description

Dalton Planning Board Proposes Earth-Removal Bylaw Amendments

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
DALTON, Mass. — The Planning Board will review a proposed amendment to the earth-removal bylaw at a future meeting that will include provisions for dealing with dust and debris.
 
At the end of its nearly three-hour meeting last week, during which the board voted to continue the Berkshire Concrete public hearing, the board briefly looked over the proposed changes. However, in-depth discussions were postponed to future meetings. 
 
The proposal substantially amends the earth-removal zoning bylaw, specifically the requirement section, to make the language more detailed and to add a stipulation requiring a dust mitigation plan and a reclamation plan. 
 
It maintains in Section One that any application shall be accompanied by a plan prepared by a professional civil engineer and land surveyor registered in Massachusetts. However, the amendment would also require that it be provided in both digital and hard-copy formats. 
 
It proposes that all associated drawings, such as a proposed extraction, restoration, or other associated plans, be overlaid on the master plan of the property. 
 
It also details what to include in each overlay: 
  • The master plan would need to include all separately identified or associated lots that are within the property boundaries. 
  • The operation overplay plan would need to have all areas where operations will take place during the current authorized permit. 
  • The reclamation overlay plan would need to include all areas to be reclaimed during the current authorized permit.
The proposed amendment then created subcategories for each overlay and provides detailed expectations for what to include. 
 
The currency bylaw says that "The plan shall contain the following." However, the proposed amendment breaks this out into its own section (A), which states "the master plan shall contain the following." 
 
This section is divided into five parts: demographics; access routes; existing watercourses and water bodies; and property lines, monuments, or fixed structures. 
 
Part two of the master plan section maintains a portion of the language in the current bylaw, which says 
 
"Existing grades in the area, and in the surrounding area, from which the above material is to be removed, together with the proposed finished grades at the conclusion of the operation, and the proposed cover vegetation and trees. Grades shall be shown at two-foot intervals." 
 
The amendment cuts "together with the proposed finished grades at the conclusion of the operation, and the proposed cover vegetation and trees," and changes two-foot intervals to ten-foot intervals. 
 
The amendment adds an overlay plan to the master plan, with a proposed on-site operations section (Section B), broken down into two parts.
 
It includes and expands upon parts F and G of the current bylaws: phased areas, if any, and proposed disposal of existing foliage and trees.
 
The amendment proposes the following language:
 
All proposed, or planned area(s) of planned operations, inclusive of all extraction, processing, and/or storage areas, included projected phased extraction areas, if any, along with any proposed roads or other fixed means of transportation extracted materials.
 
Proposed disposal methodology and location of any vegetation such as foliage, trees, stumps, and associated debris, to be removed in the process of any proposed extraction effort. 
 
The amendment adds a Section D, requiring the applicant to provide a proposed dust and noise mitigation plan. 
 
The remaining sections of the amendment are similar to the current bylaw. However, it changes oversight and approval from the Planning Board to a "Special Permit Granting Authority."
 
The proposed amendment to the zoning section of the town's bylaws, under definitions, adds Special Permit Granting Authority, a local municipal board designated by town zoning bylaws that reviews and grants special permits for specific land uses or development projects. 
 
Its role is to ensure projects meet local criteria, benefit the community, and comply with state zoning laws, all while safeguarding neighborhood interests.
 
The final change is to section eight of the current bylaws, which currently says, "Soil shall not be disturbed within 150 feet of boundaries of the premises, except at the conclusion of operations if required in order to improve the overall grading." 
 
The proposed change says, "No existing vegetation and/or soil shall not be disturbed within 150 feet of boundaries of the premises, except at the conclusion of operations if required in order to improve the overall grading, or as so defined by the permit conditions. 

Tags: dust, debris,   Planning Board,   special permit,   

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

Fenton: Governor's Council Must Deliver for the Berkshires

Community submissionGuest Column
I am a Springfield lawyer running for Governor's Council and I am asking for Berkshire County residents to support me over an incumbent from North Adams. 
 
Here's why: Last year I learned about staffing issues in our regional courts that I could not ignore. In 2025, it was reported that four of Western Massachusetts' 11 Superior Court judgeships were vacant, all at the same time. A few weeks later, that grew to five vacancies. This meant there were only six Superior Court judges serving all of Western Mass at a time when Berkshire, Hampshire, Franklin, and Hampden counties had more than 100 pending homicide cases. 
 
Those numbers were alarming to me, so I started to engage with leaders in the community who work most closely with the court system and I came to learn that these vacancies were only the tip of the iceberg here in Berkshire County.
 
I learned that no Superior Court or District Court judge had been appointed from the Berkshires since the current incumbent took office. As a result, there is not a single Superior Court judge who lives in the Berkshires today, and several of the District Court judges drive in from other counties to support Berkshire courts in Pittsfield, Great Barrington, and North Adams. Court staff also informed me about severe staffing shortages at the Berkshire Clerk of Courts office resulting in other counties needing to loan staff to the Berkshires just so hardworking employees can take a brief and planned summer vacation. This is not normal. These issues are a reflection of genuine problems with the Berkshire County court system and show a lack of proactive attention from our Governor's Councilor.
 
Instead of focusing on regional equity, I watched as the current incumbent celebrated that she has voted against the governor's nominees more than any other councilor, without much explanation as to why. Most recently, she voted against two extremely qualified former prosecutors for the Parole Board. This was despite an in-person plea from the governor and a letter of support from all the three of the district attorney's from Western Mass. Those votes do not show independence or standing up for principles, they demonstrate naivete, and an unwillingness to work with the key stakeholders.
 
I had seen and heard enough. I decided to jump in the race and challenge the incumbent to address these problems head-on.
 
I am a partner of a regional law firm. I understand our courts and the importance of having qualified, fair and hardworking judges. And I know how important it is to have judges from the Berkshires serving the Berkshires. To achieve that, you need strong relationships with the legal community and local stakeholders. You need to know how to use the power of the Governor's Council to fight forcefully for our region. And you need to be laser focused on identifying vacancies before they occur so that they can be filled quickly with local candidates.
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories