Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation commission denies Cascade Street group home plan, cites insufficient information and property concerns
Summary
Pittsfield’s Conservation Commission denied Guidewire, Inc.'s Cascade Street Notice of Intent on Jan. 8, citing missing stormwater maintenance documentation, unanswered wetland-flag questions, and unresolved property and vernal pool concerns raised by neighbors.
The Pittsfield Conservation Commission voted unanimously on Jan. 8 to deny a Notice of Intent from Guidewire, Inc. for a proposed group home on Cascade Street, finding there was insufficient information to complete the required wetlands and buffer-zone review.
Engineer Ryan Nelson (R. Levesque) presented the application; Commission members and staff pressed for more detail on septic and stormwater compliance and wetland delineation. Commissioner Jonathan Lothrop noted he did not see septic information in the NOI and asked about sewer connections; the applicant cited a private sewer agreement. City reviewer Shannon Poulin said she had not received a stormwater maintenance report for the lot and raised several unanswered questions. Mr. Van Der Kar noted some wetland flags had been refreshed but others were missing from the submission.
Neighbors raised hydrology and property concerns. Resident Ned Kirchner said the proposal affects watershed hydrology that touches his farm. Bella and Jerome Auerbach said the driveway encroached on their land and that they have an adverse-possession claim and an injunction related to property infringement; they also expressed concern about a nearby vernal pool. The applicant said the driveway must pass through the buffer zone and that the proposed stormwater design meets local ordinance standards and exceeds typical requirements for a single-family home.
Given the outstanding technical and documentation gaps and unresolved property questions, Vice Chair Thomas Sakshaug moved to deny the application for lack of information; Elizabeth Calebaugh seconded the motion, and the commission approved the denial unanimously.
The commission’s denial was procedural (lack of sufficient information) rather than a substantive ruling on the underlying land-title dispute or the ultimate feasibility of a group home at the site. The transcript notes the tree-clearing civil matter between neighbors has been partially resolved but that remaining legal concerns were not within the commission’s purview.
