BARKER ROAD
THE WORK JUST WON'T STOP
|
Summary
In April of 2003, the Pittsfield Conservation
Commission became aware of unpermitted work being done in an area
protected under the Wetlands Protection Act and within the jurisdiction
of the Commission. The Commission requested that the landowner appear
before the Commission for the required permitting process and despite
the obvious violation, the Commission chose not to issue a Cease and
Desist Order. At the hearing on April 24, the Commission found deficiencies
in the applicant's permit application (Notice of Intent) and decided
to continue the hearing to the next regular meeting but again chose
not to issue a Cease and Desist Order. In the interim, ignoring the
admonition of the Conservation Commission, the landowner again worked
in the protected area. The Chairman of the Commission requested a
Cease and Desist Order and was refused by the Commission Agent. |
At the April 24, 2003 regular meeting of
the Pittsfield Conservation Commission, the issue before the Commission
was a Notice of Intent regarding unpermitted work being done on property
on Barker Road. A foundation had been dug in an area abutting a wetland,
and work on the site was proceeding. The Commission became aware of the
violation and asked the landowner to stop all work and appear before the
Commission for the required permitting process. Despite the obvious violation,
no Cease and Desist Order was issued by the Commission.
At that meeting, one of the abutters expressed concern
that no Cease and Desist order had been issued. He pointed out that the
land was quite obviously a wetland and that the workers should not have
needed the Commission to point this out. Caleb Mitchell, Pittsfield's
Conservation Agent, replied that "One of the reasons why a Cease and Desist
Order was not issued is that they were not aware that they had committed
a violation."
Due to deficiencies in the applicant's Notice of Intent,
the Commission voted to continue the hearing on this project until the
next meeting and scheduled a site visit for April 28. Commission Chairman
Michael Makes added "I think we should also issue a Cease and Desist Order
for the work that's within our jurisdiction until we have a valid Notice
of Intent and a valid Order of Conditions." Agent Caleb Mitchell replied
"I'm not supportive of that because I think they've been cooperative since
the violation was noted."
Chairman Michael Makes: "So what you're saying is that
if they do any work then you would issue one?"
Agent Mitchell: "If they were to engage in any further
work within 100 feet of the wetland without authorization that would be
grounds for issuing a Cease and Desist Order."
Commissioner Conant: "So you have the ability to monitor
in the interim and if you saw any work out there you could order or issue
the enforcement order?"
Agent Mitchell:"I could certainly go back to the site.
It seems as though the Commission itself would like to go to the site."
Conant: "The applicant has been cooperative?"
Mitchell: "The applicant has been cooperative."
No Cease and Desist Order was issued by the Commission
at the meeting.
The very next day, April 25, a member of BEAT received
a phone call from the abutter who had voiced concern over the lack of
a Cease and Desist Order. He told us that the machinery was operating
within 100 feet of the wetland as he spoke. He didn't know what to do
about this violation. One of our members proceeded to the site while another
telephoned Michael Makes, Chairman of the Conservation Commission, who
agreed to go to the site immediately. By the time BEAT and Mr. Makes arrived
at the site, the work had stopped, but it was clear to Mr. Makes that
dirt had been newly moved in violation of the Commission's directives.
He stated that he would notify Caleb Mitchell to issue a Cease and Desist
Order.
The Commission's scheduled site visit occurred on Monday
April 28. A member of BEAT was present. However, a few hours before the
visit was scheduled to start, Mr. Mitchell had notified Mr. Makes that
he would not be able to attend. This resulted in a lack of a quorum at
the site visit. When asked about the enforcement order, Mr. Makes replied
that Mr. Mitchell had refused to issue one.
The applicant appeared before the Commission on May 15
and received a permit. The Order of Conditions specified that the first
task had to be the installation of proper drainage to protect their neighbor's
property. Also, no work should begin until the appeal period was over.
(The appeal period would end about June 11.)
At the June 5 meeting of the Conservation Commission,
Mr. Michael Makes, Chairman of the Conservation Commission, offered this
recap of the story thus far.
"After we had our public hearing [May 15] there
was a couple of days where they did nothing, and then in the morning (the
neighbor) called me and said they were preparing to pour the foundation...
It was probably the 28th. And I left a message with Caleb who didn't get
it till later in the day. He did call them. By the time Caleb called them
and they agreed to stop, they had already poured the foundation...They
did give Caleb assurance on that day, the 28th, that they wouldn't do
any further work. On the 29th they went back, they hooked up the water,
they started bulldozing in the back, shaping and grading. They started
backfilling the footing to begin putting in the foundation drain, around
the side of the building away from (the neighbor's) house... Since we
have talked to them last week, and since we threatened them with two (enforcement)
orders last week, and since both Caleb and I have been out there, they
stripped the foundation and continued working."
Mr. Mitchell issued a Cease and Desist Order on May 29.
Work proceeded despite that Order. At the Conservation Commission hearing
of June 5, the Commission ratified the Order of May 29 and voted to issue
two more Cease and Desist Orders to the applicant, and to notify that
applicant that should any more illegal work occur they would take the
matter to court.
The Commission also noted that the map of the worksite
submitted by the applicant's engineer (SK Design) was in error. The river
behind the worksite had been misplaced by 80 feet and was actually closer
to the worksite than indicated.
At the next meeting of the Conservation Commission (June
26), SK Design submitted their new corrected map and apologized for the
errors in the previously submitted map.
A neighbor to the site pointed out to the Commission that the fill being
used at the site was not clean fill. This was a violoation of the Order
of Conditions issued by the Conservation Commission. The applicant's contractor
acknowledged that the fill was not clean and took responsibility for it
(said it came from Center Street in Pittsfield) and agreed to remove it.
The Commission voted to accept the revision to the plan
(the new map) and will allow the work to continue after the new appeal
period is ended.
BEAT continues to work closely with the abutter (neighbor)
on this project. We will keep you posted on any developments.
Note: Mr. Mitchell is not only the Conservation Agent,
but is also a voting member of the Commission. To the |