Monterey Select Board
Minutes of the meeting of 7/16/12
Meeting Opened at: 9:07am
Select Board Members Present: Scott Jenssen, Chairperson, Muriel Lazzarini and Wayne Burkhart
Also in attendance for parts of the meeting: Maggie Leonard for the Monterey News, James Bracken, Maynard Forbes, Anthony Corsi, representative from National Grid, Town Counsel, Jeremia Pollard, Sean Stanton, Attorney Kaplan, Mr. Aibel, Officer Johnson, Roy Carwile, Donald Torrico, William Baumann, William Hall, Sean Stanton, Laurily Epstein, Lila Berle, Deborah Mielke, and Bruce Firger
At 9:08am the Board opened the National Grid pole hearing. Anthony Corsi of National Grid presented the scope of the project to the Board. Mr. Aibel an abutter that was notified was present to ask if the poles were going to be on his property. The poles are going to be on RT 57 (Pixley Rd) just over the New Marlborough/Monterey town line (400 feet). Maynard requested that the poles be located further from the guardrails than is proposed. Maynard also asked about the law that requires that old poles are to be removed within 180 days of the new poles being erected. A motion was made to approve the petition with Maynard’s stipulation. The motion was seconded and the Board unanimously approved the petition.
The board met with Director of Operations, Maynard Forbes’ to review the following:
1. Beaver control issues were discussed at the request of Patrick Barrett for the regional Select Board meeting agenda.
2. The crew has been working on making Wallace Hall passable as that is where traffic will be diverted when they start repair on the New Marlboro Rd Bridge.
3. The Board signed the Chapter 90 request for paving Beartown Mtn Rd.
4. Pot holes on Main and Beartown Mtn Rds were patched.
5. Basins & ditches were cleaned of debris.
6. Airport mix was spred, graded and compacted at the beach parking lot.
7. Section of Hupi Rd repaired.
8. Truck repairs.
9. Working with LePrevost on town hall hvac permits.
At 9:30am Scott Jenssen recused himself and the Board then reopened the nuisance dog hearing. Jeremia first requested that the Board approve last week’s meeting minutes so that Mr. Stanton has an opportunity to have a final version and then move to reopen the hearing to hear additional testimony. It was noted that when the letter was sent to Mr. Stanton notifying him of the hearing there was an administrative error in the date given to Mr. Stanton versus when the hearing was on the agenda (July 16 and July 9th respectively). Also noted was that notification was not required by law, it is a courtesy. Attorney Kaplan objects to today’s hearing and requested in writing (available at the town hall for a continuance). The Board noted that Ms. Noe does the scheduling for a
lot of other town Board’s and they felt comfortable that it was an honest mistake and not an intentional one. Now that the reason is known why Mr. Stanton wasn’t here last week was due to the clerical error they are very interested in hearing Mr. Stanton’s side of the story and any suggestions he may have to rectify the issue. The Board stated for the record that they have kept an open mind and they have not made any decisions on the matter.
Copies of the affidavits from the Police Department were given to Mr. Stanton and his attorney. Attorney Kaplan informed the Board that another reason he requested a continuance was because he wanted to hear the audio from the July 9th Select Board meeting but he was unavailable to come to the town hall on Friday to do this prior to today’s hearing. He requested that the hearing remain opened until he has an opportunity to listen to last week’s audio tape and they have an opportunity to respond. The Board agreed that they will keep the hearing open until next Monday.
At this point, Attorney Pollard swore in everyone present that would be submitting testimony. Lila Berle, a farmer who owns four Maremma’s that guard her animals on her farm (in Gt. Barrington, Alford and Egremont) was called upon as Mr. Kaplan’s first witness. She stated that without these dogs she would lose a lot of livestock. She noted that these dogs will bark “crazily” when they feel the livestock they are protecting is being threatened. She stressed that they are not pets or people dogs, they are working dogs. Jeremia asked Mr. Berle if she was located in a residential area and how close her nearest neighbor is. She stated that she has educated her neighbor when they’ve become upset about the barking (to not linger around the dog as they perceive
that as a threat and will bark until the threat is removed). Her farm is 400 acres. She stated (when asked) that it is not as usual to use these dogs to protect chickens, they usually protect sheep.
Bruce Firger was Attorney Kaplan’s 2nd witness who is a real estate broker. He stated that he prepares prospective buyers with information on whether or not the town where the property is located is a Right to Farm community. Mr. Firger lives on Blue Hill Rd and was shown an aerial photograph and asked to initial the photograph where his house is located. He stated that his house is located 2/10 of a mile from the Barber’s farm (exhibit A on the photo). He has lived there for approximately 10 years and has known that it is a farm since moving there. He is aware of the controversy concerning the dog which has been going on since around 2010. He stated that for quite awhile he heard the dog barking on and off all night. He stated he is a light
sleeper and sleeps with his windows open and a ceiling mounted fan which has a humming noise. Over time he stated he has become immune to the noise and he feels that the dog has now learned when to bark and what to bark at and is less aggressive than he was when he was first brought to the farm. He stated he now only hears the dog bark occasionally for approximately 15 seconds if he happens to get up in the middle of the night (anytime between 2 and 4am).
It was noted by Lila Berle when asked by Jeremia that the coyotes are typically scared off by the visual of the dog, not the bark.
Sean Stanton was called as the next witness. He is a full time farmer and described what his farm(s) consist of and where some of the livestock are located on the farm. He has 4 portable hen houses on Blue Hill Farm whose purpose is to follow the dairy cows to scratch through the cow pies (to reduce the risk of parasites) and to get their protein. Sean has been farming on Blue Hill for 6 years and summarized the problems he’s had with predators prior to and after employing the Maremma. He explained the fencing that is used to keep the dog in which is ineffective at keeping the chickens in as they can just fly over it. He explained the process of training these dogs. The hen houses are moved every 2-3 days but sometimes weeks in between. Sean stated that he was approached by
Paula Hall who told him he needed to get rid of the dog to which he responded that he was protected under the right to farm bylaw to have this dog to protect his livestock. Sean noted on exhibit B (5/1/10) where the livestock was located at the time of Paula’s complaint. After the complaint the chickens were moved further south than where noted on exhibit B. Sean also heard from the Sillman’s around the same time (their home was also noted on exhibit B). The Sillman’s were afraid for their grandchildren and also concerned about the barking. Sean invited the Sillman’s, their children and their grandchildren to meet the dog and Sean explained the dog’s purpose. Since then the Sillman’s have not complained but they have put white noise machines in their bedrooms which are on the back sides of his house. Since 2010 Sean stated he has never again heard any complaints from the Hall’s, Baumann’s or
Sillman’s. The next time that Sean learned there was a problem was from the Chief of Police. At last Tuesday’s hearing at the Southern Berkshire District Court from a citation issued to Mr. Stanton he noted allegations and disputed them that he has hidden from anyone trying to come to him with this issue and not deal with it.
Sean noted on exhibit B where the chickens were in 2012 (which is the closest they’ve been to the Hall’s since 2010). On exhibit B it was also noted where the chickens are currently located, in Gt. Barrington, significantly further from the Hall’s and Baumann’s (approximately ¼ mile from their residences). Sean stated that the owner’s of the farm have no complaints regarding the barking and a letter was received from Carol Levin regarding this. Attorney Pollard asked that an attestation be submitted with regards to this letter.
Sean Stanton described the chicken enclosure that is moved around the property as a fenced 164 ft. x 270 ft. area which contains 625 chickens, 1 Maremma dog, 4 portable coops as well as food and water containers.
Since moving them to Gt. Barrington, Sean has been contacted by the Animal Control Officer in Gt. Barrington regarding complaints received at the Gt. Barrington Police Station. A copy of the Gt. Barrington police log notes were submitted to the Board; One complaint was made by Mr. Baumann and no activity was taken. The next log note was on July 10, 2012 at 8:40pm stated that an officer responded and reported that all was quiet in the area of the call. On Wed., July 11 2012 at 1:17am a complaint was received from the Baumann’s and then another was made by the Hall’s. The police were at the farm for approximately 20 minutes and reported that 2 outbursts of barking with 5 barks each time were heard, and the wildlife seen was excessive. There was another walk in complaint received,
made by the Baumann’s noting the continuing excessive barking. The log notes were admitted as exhibit 1.
The dog is on the farm for approximately 6 months of the year, weather dependant. When the dog is relocated to the North Plain Rd farm where Mr. Stanton lives and his bedroom is approximately 200 feet from; he stated that he has not experienced any excessive barking and the neighbors there have never complained about the dog’s barking.
Employees are present on the Blue Hill Farm from approximately 5:40am to 10am and then again from 4 – 8pm. Sean has come to the farm at 8 in the evening to see if he could observe the barking himself and stated he didn’t hear anything unless he approached the dog. Jeremia stated that the testimonies given today support that the dog barks mostly in the 2 – 4am hours not during the timeframe when Sean visited.
The Board asked if the chickens could be locked in the henhouse at night; Sean felt that this would be impractical. He did concur that if the chickens were in the house they would be protected.
It is ideal to have the chickens in one spot for 2 – 3 days but Sean did state that he, for various reasons, is not always able to move them that frequently.
Billy Baumann of Blue Hill Rd noted that all of the bylaws and regulations in place don’t seem to be worth the piece of paper they are written on. He has nothing against Mr. Stanton or their right to farm, he noted that the only complaint is that he and his family can not sleep due to the dog and it is affecting their ability to operate their businesses. Jeremia suggested that they provide a recording of what exactly it is they are hearing. Jeremia noted that the one undisputed fact is that the dog does bark and he barks in the middle of the night. He felt it would help the Board if they could hear the barking themselves and this is only a suggestion not a requirement.
Attorney Kaplan felt that this is not a case of a vicious dog or an unresponsive owner it is more of a land issue and he felt it needs to be looked at objectively as other surrounding neighbors have stated you can hear the dog but do not describe it in the same fashion as the Baumann’s and Hall’s have. He asked the Board to consider this in context with MGL Chapter 40A Section 3. He also noted MGL Chapter 61. Jeremia concurred that a dog is incidental to farm operations.
Mr. Stanton wants this to be resolved but he asked that it be taken into consideration that farming is his occupation and the dog is needed to support his livelihood. Mr. Baumann noted that the right to farm bylaw does not supersede any other laws or regulations.
Sean was asked if he has considered any solutions to this issue so that it does not continue to drag on and on unresolved. He stated he has spoken with the Hall’s and they do not appear interested in hearing any suggestions Sean might have. Attorney Kaplan suggested that during the times of year that this is an issue the Hall’s and Baumann’s should consider something to deflect noise and open up the lines of communication with Sean to be more aware of the scheduling when the dog and livestock will be moved. Mr. Baumann didn’t feel that they should have to buy items to deflect the noise; they asked why the dog can’t be muzzled. Sean stated that they the dog then wouldn’t be heard and would be at a risk.
Sean stated he would like the Board to make a site visit so he can show them the different locations on the farm that were spoken to today. Wayne is already familiar with the property and Muriel stated she will not be available to do this until the weekend.
The Board agreed to not make their decision until next Monday so that Attorney Kaplan would have the opportunity to listen to the audio of last week’s meeting and be able to refute any testimony given then.
Miscellaneous Select Board Items Reviewed:
1. The minutes from 7.9.12 were approved as written.
2. The Board requested of Officer Johnson to increase patrols for speeders on Fairview Rd.
3. Officer Johnson let the Board know that a “no training required” defibrillator is being installed in the Town Hall.
4. Mail was reviewed which included:
a. Copies of the Berkshire Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (Monterey’s extract) were distributed to the Board to review for next week’s meeting.
5. Warrants were signed.
6. Inter-Departmental Secretary’s weekly report reviewed.
A motion was made and unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at: 11:40am
Submitted by:
Melissa Noe, Inter-Departmental Secretary
Approved by:
Monterey Select Board
Select Board Members
Minutes Book
| 
