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

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

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

		<subject index="0" >August 23, 2005</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
AUGUST 23, 2005 MEETING
MINUTES

PRESENT:  Gary Pitney, Barbara Cohen Hobbs, Robert Bartle, Allan Blau, and Eric Plakun
ABSENT:  Doug Rose, Paul Coates

Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.  Minutes of the July 23 meeting were reviewed and changes suggested.  Member Bartle moved to approve as amended, Member Blau seconded, and the motion carried.

At 7:35 p.m. Vice Chairman Pitney opened the public hearing on the Shack LPOD Special Permit application with Member Bartle reading the public hearing notice into the record.  After denying the application in June, the Planning Board agreed to reconsider the application after proper notification had been posted.  Philip Heller, Marshall White and Allen Clark appeared for the applicant.  Mr. Heller gave a quick background on the application, explaining that the original application was denied because of language in Section 6.5.10 that does not allow any development within 100 feet of the mean high water mark.  He said that his understanding of that section of the bylaw pertained only to new development on raw land, not for existing buildings.  Town Counsel’s written opinion was that the Planning Board should only be looking at the grading and excavation within the LPOD; the house project should fall under the 6.1.2 section of the bylaw.  Member Plakun pointed out that under Section 6.5.3, the LPOD supercedes other districts.  The question was whether 6.1.2 constituted a “district.”  Mr. Heller said that since the bylaw was adopted in the late 1990s, the Planning Board has approved numerous LPOD special permits when the house was within 100’ of the mean high water mark.  Member Plakun replied that his question was whether the Board has been interpreting this bylaw wrong from the beginning, and a brief discussion ensued about the intent of Town Counsel’s opinion.  Member Plakun then said that he felt the LPOD goes beyond the environmental aspects of a project to also address what the long term impacts of housing projects along the lakeside will do to the “look” of the lake.  He added that he felt the Selectmen and Planning Board looked at different things when reviewing a special permit application, so the Planning Board should have a say in the house project within an LPOD and not just the land use activity associated with that project.  The applicant assured the Board that written approval to extend the 90-day deadline would be submitted. With no further discussion, Member Plakun moved to continue the public hearing on the Shack LPOD special permit application until Oct. 11th so that the Board can get Town Counsel’s opinion on:
·	the language in Section 6.5.3 that says the LPOD requirements supercede other zoning districts; and
·	the definition of “all development” in Section 6.5.10.a, first asterisk; and
·	to determine if the proposed activity in the application constitutes development.
Member Bartle seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.

Vice Chairman Pitney then opened the public hearing on the Hyson LPOD Special Permit application.  Mr. Craig Moffatt appeared for the applicant.  The Hysons want to build a small addition to their house within the LPOD and bury a line from an underground propane tank to the house.  The tank is outside the LPOD.  Mr. Moffatt explained that the footprint is not changing, just the air print and the roofline.  The Board determined that if square footage was being added, even if it was on piers, that it was increasing the footprint.  Member Plakun asked if the house was within 100’ of the mean high water mark, and if this application had the same problem as the Shacks.  However, this application was found to be different because there is no mention of the Housatonic River in Section 4.11.f that talks about the 100-foot setback.  As the Board reviewed the contents of the application it found that the application was lacking a grading and drainage plan, a timing schedule, contours, and the 100’ setback line.  The applicant was advised that no timelines would start until this information was received.  Member Plakun moved to approve the application because it seems to meet the applicable standards, pending receipt of a revised plan that includes all the required segments of Section 6.5.8 including a timing schedule, a grading and drainage plan with contours, and the 100’ setback line, and on the condition that no wastewater, pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers be applied within the LPOD in perpetuity. Member Bartle seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.

Vice Chairman Pitney then opened the public hearing on the Kampoosa Clearing LPOD and Section 4.11 special permit application.  Shaun Leary appeared for the applicant.  The plan proposes to tear down an existing single family home and replace it with a new two-family home.  It also proposes to reduce the total number of units on the property from 8 to 7.  The current multi-family building that used to be a motel has 8 apartments now.  Tri-Town Health has already approved a septic design for a total of 10 bedrooms.  The existing apartments are all one bedroom; the two family would have one two-bedroom and one one-bedroom unit.  Under Section 4.11.a.2, a special permit is allowed for converting a single family into a two family unit.  In this application, the new footprint would be smaller, including a carport on piers.  Section 4.11.a.2 requires 3 acres; the acreage is 6.5 acres.  Ms. Leary explained that the applicants do not want to split the lot, and was wondering if two principal buildings could be allowed for this special permit.  Ms. Leary added that the only thing that might be saved from the single family house is part of the foundation.  She also asked if recycled asphalt could be used on the parking area instead of gravel.  Member Plakun advised that gravel might be a better choice, given that the property is totally within the Kampoosa Bog Area of Critical Environmental Concern.  Recycled asphalt might trigger an opinion from an outside consultant that would be paid for by the applicant.  The applicants are asking for a duplex because they want to use part of the house for weekend use, but they don’t want leave the house empty during the week.  It was determined that the applicant lacked several required aspects of Section 6.5.8.  The applicant agreed to extend the 90-day deadline for a decision in writing. Member Plakun moved to continue the public hearing on the Kampoosa Clearing Special Permit application until Oct. 11th so that the applicant can provide the additional information before a decision is rendered.  Member Hobbs seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.

Marshall White then appeared before the Board to discuss an error in the Birnhak special permit plan that was discovered by the Building Inspector when they applied for a building permit.  There is a 5,000 square-foot difference between what was on the plan and what actually the acreage of the property is.  Mr. White said that even with the reduced acreage, the project still meets all setback requirements.  In terms of lot coverage, the new ratio will be 7.5%, and 10% is allowed.  The total floor area will now be 11.2%; allowed is 20%.  After a brief discussion on how this mistake could have occurred and how to prevent it in the future, Member Plakun moved to accept the revised plan as the proposed change does not seem to constitute a substantial change from the original project.  Member Hobbs seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.  Board secretary will inform the Building Inspector of the decision.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.