Latest Developments: Churchill Estates – DISAPPROVED by Community Development Board On December 5, the Pittsfield Community Development Board disapproved this project without prejudice – which means the developer could start all over again, but can’t continue on with the current proposal. The Community Development Office found significant deficiencies which had not been addressed, and they did not believe these deficiencies could be addressed in a couple of weeks. They had received a letter from the Board of Health which said that per the subdivision regulations the project should be disapproved. (BEAT will request a copy of the letter.) The City Engineering Department/Department of Public Works and Utilities said that the road design did not meet the City’s requirements. It will be interesting to see if the developer withdraws their Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission scheduled to meet December 7, 2006.The site would benefit from a realhydrogeological study to determine the potential of the aquifer beneath it. This would give the City, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the neighbors a real idea of the value of this asset.Housing project opposed by firm
By Jessica Willis, Berkshire Eagle Staff
Article Launched:12/04/2006 03:03:19 AM EST
Monday, December 04
PITTSFIELD — Yesterday afternoon, about 20 residents from the Churchill Street and Hancock Road areas gathered in their neighbor Daniel Amuso’s garage for coffee and cake, and the relief was palpable. They had just learned that Churchill Estates, a proposed 36-unit subdivision planned for their rural northwest corner of the city, had received less-than-enthusiastic reviews from a consulting firm hired by the city to assess the proposed subdivision’s impact on the wetlands-rich area.Read the developer’s “hydrogeologic review (pdf) “.Read the Review (pdf) written by the consultant who was hired by the City. The Review recommends that the City disapprove the plans for Churchill Estates Subdivision. Next hearings:
Conservation Commission 12/7/06 – 6pm
Summary of the project In July 2006, a developer proposed “Churchill Estates”, a 39 house development off Churchill Road in Pittsfield at the town line with Lanesborough. The site slopes steeply down to Daniels Brook which feeds Onota Lake. The houses, of unspecified size, would all have septic systems. This project would be located on Pittsfield’s only potential medium yield aquifer that, as far as we know, is not polluted with PCBs. BEAT believes the city should keep this land as open space to protect the aquifer. It is an irreplaceable asset.The picture to the left shows the area of the development site, with the light green area being the medium-yield aquifer. Click on the photo for a larger view with the aquifer shown as a transparency. return to top
History of This Project
The first hearing on this project was July 13, 2006. The Pittsfield Conservation Commission held a hearing on the Notice of Intent for Churchill Road (Map D17, Block 2, Lot 1) for installation of a water main for subdivision road. The applicant is Central Berkshire Land Development, LLC. Carolyn Sibner of the Housatonic Valley Association and Jane Winn of BEAT spoke about the need to protect the City’s aquifer. The Conservation Commission Public Hearing was continued to Thursday, August 24, 2006.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2006 the Pittsfield Community Development Board held a hearing on the Definitive Subdivision Plan entitled “Definitive Plan of Churchill Estates” submitted by Central Berkshire Land Development, LLC for a 39 lot subdivision. This subdivision is located on the eastern side of Churchill Street, just below the Lanesborough town line. The site can be further identified as being composed of the following Assessor’s lots: E16-1-301 & D17-2-302. Pittsfield’s Community Development Board continued the public hearing on Churchill Estates until Tuesday, October 3, 2006 at 7pm due to the lack of detailed information submitted thus far by the proponents.
On July 26, 2006, the reviewer for the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act held a site visit to “receive advice and comments from agencies, officials, and citizens regarding which environmental issues are significant for this project.”
Here is the MEPA description of the project:
The project proposes the development of 39 residential housing units on a 54-acre site. The project site is located in the northwest corner of the City of Pittsfield; the Town line of Lanesborough is the northern boundary of the parcel. Approximately 16 acres of the site has been mined for gravel. Daniels Brook, a perennial stream, flows north to south along the eastern boundary of the property. The project will result in the creation of 7.3 acres of new impervious surface; the generation of 390 new daily vehicle trips; require 15,840 gallons per day (gpd) of drinking water; and generate 15,840 gpd of wastewater.
The project requires a NPDES Stormwater Permit; Site Plan Review from the Pittsfield Planning Board; and an Order of Conditions from the Pittsfield Conservation Commission, and therefore a Superceding Order of Conditions from the Department of Environmental Protection if the local Order is appealed.
On the ENF, the proponent incorrectly stated that the project exceeds a Mandatory EIR threshold. The project’s impacts to jurisdictional wetlands were not documented in the ENF. The project consultant has agreed to send out a supplemental information packet to the ENF distribution list regarding wetland impacts before the site visit.
At the site visit July 26, BEAT became convinced that there are additional jurisdictional wetlands on the site that needed to be delineated by an independent consultant. There were numerous other problems that came to light as well. The proponent expects the city to take over the roads, not use salt on them, and the storm drains must be cleaned out four times per year. BEAT believes that city storm drains are cleaned out once a year at best. The development would have a deed restriction to prohibit the use of pesticides and fertilizers. BEAT sees that as unenforceable. The stormwater management system had no design specifications that BEAT could find. This leaves many questions as to whether or not it would work. Part of the Operation and Maintenance Plan included checking after every two-years storm – unlikely in BEAT’s opinion.
At the August 24, 2006 Pittsfield Conservation Commission hearing, the Commission voted to hire an independent consultant, Tighe & Bond, to confirm whether the area of BEAT’s concern is or is not jurisdictional wetland.
At the October 5, 2006 Pittsfield Conservation Commission hearing, the Commission reviewed the independent consultants report which found the wetlands to be bordering an intermittent stream channel and thus they are jurisdictional. The Pittsfield Conservation Agent, Caleb Mitchell, who is also a VOTING member of the commission, disagreed with the consultants findings and suggested that the Commission should find the wetlands to be non-jurisdictional. BEAT feels that this showed extremely poor judgment on the Agent’s part. He did not seem to understand that this would have given opponents of the project the ability to easily appeal the decision – or perhaps the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection would have appealed the decision. In any case, the rest of the commission decided to agree with the independent consultant – after all that was the reason they hired an independent consultant – and find the wetlands to be jurisdictional. The hearing was continued to give the developer time to make appropriate changes to the plans based on this information.
On December 5, 2006 the Pittsfield Community Development Board disapproved this project without prejudice – which means the developer could start all over again, but can’t continue on with the current proposal. The Community Development Office found significant deficiencies which had not been addressed, and they did not believe these deficiencies could be addressed in a couple of weeks as the developer suggested. The Board had received a letter from the Board of Health which said that per the subdivision regulations the project should be disapproved. (BEAT will request a copy of the letter.) The City Engineering Department/Department of Public Works and Utilities said that the road design did not meet the City’s requirements. It will be interesting to see if the developer withdraws their Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission scheduled to meet December 7, 2006.
Next hearings:
Community Development Board 12/5/06 – 7pm
Conservation Commission 12/7/06 – 6pm