<FCFORMSHEADER>
<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

	<fcobject objtype="oDocument" formid="96" objname="Meeting MInutes">

		<subject index="0" >April 24, 2006</subject>

		<field id="8010" index="0" type="text">Meeting MInutes</field>

		<field id="2000" index="0" type="number">0</field>

		<field id="3999" index="0" type="number">0</field>

	</fcobject>

</firstclass>

</FCFORMSHEADER>
Stockbridge Planning Board
April 24, 2006

MINUTES

Present:  Chairman Douglas Rose, Robert Bartle, Allan Blau, Eric Plakun, Barbara Cohen Hobbs, and Paul Coates
 
Absent: Gary Pitney

Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M.  Member Hobbs made a motion to approve the minutes of April 11, 2006. Member Plakun seconded this motion and it was unanimously approved, 3-0.

The purpose of the public hearing is to amend the Zoning Bylaws Section 6.5, Lake and Pond Overlay District (LPOD).  Member Rose presented the article for discussion.  Attorney David Hellman stated that the proposed bylaw is more restrictive, much more complicated and goes into the areas of the Conservation Commission that is way beyond the purview of this board. Attorney Hellman stated nothing is permitted by right under this bylaw, which creates a greater hardship for the applicant. Attorney Philip Heller also spoke in opposition to the proposed bylaw. Member Rose suggested that Attorney Hellman write a letter noting his objections to the bylaw.

Attorney Heller stated that he is prepared at the Town Meeting to vote against the bylaw and argue against it. This public hearing was continued to May 9, 2006 at 7:30 P.M.

The purpose of the public hearing is the addition of new subsection to the Zoning Bylaws for a definition of Adult Entertainment. Member Rose stated that the public hearing is open and the board received no written comments then opened the hearing for discussion. 
Member Plakun moved to recommend adoption of the Adult Entertainment bylaw.  Member Hobbs seconded this motion and it was unanimously approved, 6-0.

This public hearing was held to amend the Zoning Bylaws Section 2.2 definition Municipal/Governmental Use. Member Rose presented the article for discussion.  
Member Plakun requested an explanation of the amendment.  Member Rose stated that he would get further clarification as to the reason for the amendment from Town Counsel. This public hearing was continued to May 9, 2006 at 7:45 P.M.

The Planning Board held a public hearing to review the matter of rescinding the constructive approval of the Stone Ridge Subdivision.

Member Rose stated that there was a problem with publication with the last notice so therefore the vote at the last meeting was not constitutional and another hearing had to be advertised and held. Member Rose stated he would like to take the motions from the March 28, 2006 into the record at this hearing.  

Member Rose stated that the record should reflect Attorney Shearn's objections that he interposed at the last meeting to be incorporated into this meeting.

Member Rose moved that the Planning Board find that Waiver #1 which Stone Ridge applied for in its Application for Definitive Subdivision Plan Approval, dated October 11, 2002, was not in the public interest and thus should be rescinded if, in fact it has been constructively approved and not previously rescinded. This was a request for a waiver for the length of the dead end street, which was beyond the 500 foot maximum allowed by Stockbridge Subdivision Regulations. Member Bartle seconded this motion and it was unanimously approved, 6-0.
 
Member Rose moved that the Planning Board find that Waiver #2 which Stone Ridge applied for in its Application for Definitive Subdivision Plan Approval, dated October 11, 2002, was not in the public interest and thus should be rescinded if, in fact it has been constructively approved and not previously rescinded.  This was a request for a waiver for the distance of the offset of the proposed subdivision from the Lahey Crossroad intersection.  Member Bartle seconded this motion and it was unanimously approved, 6-0.

Member Rose moved that the Planning Board find that Waiver #3 which Stone Ridge applied for in its Application for Definitive Subdivision Plan Approval, dated October 11, 2002, was not in the public interest and thus should be rescinded if, in fact it has been constructively approved and not previously rescinded.  This was a waiver request for concrete markers for property line designations.  Member Coates seconded this motion and the final vote was 1 in favor 5 opposed.

Member Rose moved that the Planning Board find that Waiver #4 which Stone Ridge applied for in its Application for Definitive Subdivision Plan Approval, dated October 11, 2002, was not in the public interest and thus should be rescinded if, in fact it has been constructively approved and not previously rescinded. This was a waiver request for no sidewalks.  Member Coates seconded this motion and the final vote was 1 in favor 5 opposed.

Member Rose moved that the Planning Board find that Waiver #5 which Stone Ridge applied for in its Application for Definitive Subdivision Plan Approval, dated October 11, 2002, was not in the public interest and thus should be rescinded if, in fact it has been constructively approved and not previously rescinded.  This was a waiver request for the turning radii in two corners of the subdivision to be reduced from the required distances.  Member Coates seconded this motion and it was unanimously approved, 6-0.

Member Rose moved that the Planning Board find that Waiver #6 which Stone Ridge applied for in its Application for Definitive Subdivision Plan Approval, dated October 11, 2002, was not in the public interest and thus should be rescinded if, in fact it has been constructively approved and not previously rescinded.  This was a waiver request that the road width be reduced from what is required in the Stockbridge Subdivision Regulations.  Member Bartle seconded this motion and the final vote was 5 in favor 1 opposed.

Member Rose moved that in light of the evidence that the Stone Ridge Subdivision property is no longer encumbered by a mortgage, I move that, in accordance with General Laws Chapter 41, Section 81U, the Planning Board rescind constructive approval, if any, of the Stone Ridge Application for Definitive Subdivision Plan Approval dated October 11, 2002, ,denied on March 11, 2003, despite allegedly being constructively approved on or about February 9, 2003, which was subsequently rescinded on October 31, 2003, for the following reasons:

1.	The application was deficient, as described in the letter dated January 21, 2003 from the BSC Group.
2.	The applicant failed to respond to deficiencies in its application under Section 4.202 p and r of the Stockbridge Subdivision Regulations, which were pointed out and required through a vote of the Board during the public hearing on November 12, 2002.
3.	Several parts of the application, as submitted, were not in compliance with the Stockbridge Subdivision Regulations, namely the length of the dead end road, the problematic offset, the insufficient turning radii of corners in the proposed road, and the inadequate width of the road.

 Member Blau seconded this motion and it was unanimously approved, 6-0. 

Rob Hoogs, Foresight Land Services represented Austin Riggs Center, Inc. a request for approval of a Form A for property located on Main Street. The new parcel created Parcel A contains 300 sq.ft. and is not a separate building lot.  Parcel A is to be added to property not owned by Fredric D. Rutberg and abutter, and is never to be conveyed as a separate building lot.  Member Hobbs made a motion to approve the Form A for Austin Riggs Center, Inc.  Member Blau seconded this motion and it was unanimously approved,  5- 0. Member Plakum recused.

Member Plakun made a motion to adjourn this meeting at 8:10 P.M.  Member Hobbs seconded this motion and it was unanimously approved, 6-0.

Respectfully submitted,

Jaimy Messana
Planning Board Secretary