Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 | Next |
The two maps on this page were created by superimposing aerial photos and maps B-8, and S-1.The map on the left is the original assessor’s map with field numbers, the newly proposed fields (4 red rectangles), and the existing fields (4 gray rectangles) superimposed by BEAT. (The assessor’s map didn’t have the four fields. We used aerial photos to add the existing fields, and the college’s map to add the proposed fields.)
The map on the right is the college’s S-1 with the newly proposed fields (4-gray rectangles) added by the college’s engineer and the existing fields (4 white rectangles) superimposed by BEAT. Note that the proposed project calls for fields #1 and #2 to move toward the bottom of the map, fields #3 to move toward the top of the map, and field #4 to rotate and move toward the top of the map. |
Note that according to the assessor’s map, field #4 is being moved up a slope. On the college’s map field #4 doesn’t need to cross any contours to complete its move. Also notice that there is only one contour line between the brook and the closest side of field #3 according to the assessor’s map, but according to the college’s map there are two contour lines. Notice the edge of field #2 closest to the vernal pool. On the assessor’s map there is only one contour line between the vernal pool and this edge. On the college’s map there are two. What is the effect of these discrepancies and how did they come to be? Again, BEAT’s copy of S-1 and the copy on PEER’s website are from the files of the Department of Environmental Protection. A copy of this map was once seen by BEAT in the files of the Pittsfield Conservation Commission, but has not been present at any of BEAT’s subsequent inspections of public records at the Pittsfield Conservation Commission office.
Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 | Next |