Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Culvert Rattlesnake Mountain Road topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on Rattlesnake Mountain Road culvert continued after debate over steel guardrails, tree removals and wetland mitigation
Summary
At a July 14 hearing the commission reviewed the Rattlesnake Mountain Road culvert replacement. GZA advised that traffic-rated guardrails are required; commissioners and residents debated wooden vs. steel guardrails (significant cost differences), tree removals (eight trees proposed) and where wetland replication should occur; commission requested cost differentials and continued the hearing.
The Stockbridge Conservation Commission continued a hearing July 14 on a proposed culvert replacement and roadway repairs on Rattlesnake Mountain Road after extended discussion about guardrail materials, tree removals and wetland replication.
Susana Souza of GZA, presenting for the project, told the commission that traffic‑rated guardrails are a required component of the project to meet roadway-safety standards. She said engineers evaluated wooden, steel-backed timber and weathering steel alternatives, but found the steel-backed timber guardrails to be roughly "two to three times more expensive" than standard steel and weathering steel about "25% more expensive." The presentation also listed the culvert dimensions (about 9.9 feet across) and that guardrails would extend roughly 70 feet on either side where slopes are steeper.
Residents and commissioners raised aesthetic objections to a standard steel rail through two adjacent conservation properties, calling it "out of character" with a narrow, dirt road. One member said the project "has been blown up way out of proportion" and questioned whether the culvert area had flooded in living memory; presenters and other members reiterated that the work is governed by roadway safety standards and state wetland rules.
The project proposes removal of eight trees on the south side of the road — including a 24‑inch oak — for construction access and embankment work. GZA proposed three red maples in a wetland replication area and said woody vegetation could naturalize in disturbed areas beyond the embankment limit; the Nature Conservancy and the Housatonic Valley Association signaled support for accommodating additional plantings where feasible. Commissioners pressed whether the commission’s bylaw mandates 1:1 tree replacement and whether replication might be more successful at an alternative site, away from dense phragmites.
The commission asked the applicant to provide documented cost differentials between standard steel and alternative guardrail types and to explore alternative wetland replication locations within Stockbridge that might be more likely to succeed. A motion to continue the hearing was made and seconded so the commission could review the requested information and await a Division of Ecological Restoration funding decision expected at the end of the summer.
