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

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

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

		<subject index="0" >December 14, 2004</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
DECEMBER 14, 2004 MEETING
MINUTES

PRESENT:  All present (Member Coates arrived late).

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.  The minutes of the Dec. 7th meeting were reviewed and one change was suggested.  Member Pitney moved to approve them as amended, Member Bartle seconded, and the motion carried.

With Member Coates not present, the board discussed with Town Counsel and the counsels for the applicant and the abutters the options of continuing with only six members.  Member Plakun asked how many members were necessary to approve the application.  Town Counsel said that four members needed to vote for the subdivision, and five needed to vote for the special permit.

Town Counsel distributed an email correspondence between himself the Ken Kimmel, counsel for the applicant, which requested additional legal documents that are required in the application before it can be approved.  Included in this request is the language for a homeowners’ association.  Town Counsel had hoped to be able to offer his opinion of the material at the Jan. 11th meeting, but will be unable to do so because they have not been received yet.  Mr. Kimmel has indicated that he is working on them now, and has agreed to extend the 90-day deadline window so proper review can occur.  The applicant, Town Counsel, and the board agreed on extending the approval deadline until midnight on February 8, 2005.  [Mr. Kimmel submitted a written letter indicating this after the meeting.]  Scott Horsley, the town’s independent expert, also had some questions that needed to be answered before he could present his report.  It was decided to postpone the Jan. 11th hearing until Jan. 25th to give all parties adequate time to finish their work.

Once Member Coates arrived, Chairman Rose reopened the public hearing on the Stone Ridge definitive subdivision plan and special permit LPOD application.  He reminded the board and the audience that this evening was dedicated to gathering public input on the proposed project.  Richard Simons, counsel for the abutters’ group, spoke first.  He began by saying that on its face, a 7-lot subdivision on 100 acres should not impact the land or neighborhood much.  However, the combination of steep slopes, a rural neighborhood, underground water resources, and the proximity of Mohawk Brook actually creates a variety of negative impacts.  The project goes against the intent of the town’s master plan as well.  The abutters have two main issues with the application: 1) the road length waiver; and 2) that it goes against the master plan.  The proposed road is almost four times the allowed length for a dead end road, with 1260’ of two-way road and another 1200’ of one way loop.    The town’s master plan discourages development on mountainsides, it encourages affordable housing, it seeks to preserve tributaries of the Housatonic River, to preserve poor soils, and to preserve aquifers.  The project attempts to develop an inhospitable piece of property.

Mr. Doug Clark then gave a presentation on behalf of the abutters’ group.  He is an independent consultant from New York State retained to review the application.  He indicated from the beginning that the project has changed very little from the original application of two years ago.  There is essentially the same length of road, with just two less lots.  He asked the board if it would include his original presentation from the earlier application into this record because many of his points are in there as well.  Chairman Rose agreed if Mr. Clark would supply a fresh copy.  Mr. Clark, like Mr. Simons, had two main issues with the application.  The first was the road and its design.  In short, it does not meet state or federal specifications in that it is longer than desirable for a dead end road.  The primary rationale for short dead end roads is emergency access, and while the 1200-foot loop road attempts to remedy that a bit, it is still not a good design.  He felt that the loop was unnecessary and added to the negative impacts, even if it did increase emergency access to those lots.  Member Plakun asked that Mr. Clark stick to issues that are new to this application, especially if testimony from the first application were being submitted into this record.  Member Bartle pointed out to Mr. Clark that the town Police Chief and Fire Chief had already approved the road design as safe for emergency access.  Chairman Rose read the section of the Subdivision Regulations that allows longer than 500 feet if necessitated by topography or other local condition.  He asked Mr. Clark if, in his opinion, a waiver was necessitated by topography for this site.  Mr. Clark said that a shorter road was feasible.  Chairman Rose then asked if any development was feasible with a 500-foot road, and Mr. Clark felt that it was.  He added that a 500-foot road creates a development pattern that is dramatically different than allowing longer roads.  Long roads allow for mountainside development, which cause drainage and erosion issues.  He felt that the land in question was a tough site to develop at all and the road that was proposed was not a small country lane: to meet grade requirements, the cleared area would approach 50’-60’ in spots.  Mr. Clark added that the application did not include necessary soil information for anyone to determine if blasting was required.  He also found a flaw in the design of the intersection between the two-way road and the one-way loop.  At the intersection the grade must be 1%; currently it is 4%.  The applicant must fix the grade or ask for another waiver.  The road design itself does not even meet the town’s engineering requirements.  The vertical curves are short and steep, and do not meet standards.  Some of the grading information is missing.  The applicant is asking for a super-elevated curve, but did not bank it as required, and some essential information is missing from that part of the plan.  The application does not call for guardrails anywhere.  Mr. Clark felt that with a 2:1 slope off corners, a car could easily roll over if it missed the curve.  In addition, the topography of Dugway Road on the plan is not accurate.  The application also does not address the construction impacts of Dugway Road, and there seems to be no plans to minimize those impacts.  Finally, with two lots in West Stockbridge, no taxes will be paid on those lots to the town.  Even though most subdivision roads start as private roads, they usually get taken over by the town eventually and the maintenance costs on this road will be steep.  Town Counsel asked Mr. Clark if he disagreed with the applicant’s blasting report.  Mr. Clark replied that without test holes he could not quantify the data to determine construction impacts.

The second issue Mr. Clark spoke about was the storm water runoff.  New data included in this plan show the soil is too porous at the location of one detention basin; it will not be allowed to be placed there under the state’s storm water policy.  There were no test holes dug in the area picked for the other detention basin.  The detention basin by the road is too close to a surface water resource, Mohawk Brook.  Mr. Clark also believed that the report understates the volume of runoff.  He said the applicant used the wrong soil group when determining the runoff data.  There seems to be no calculations to verify that the rock linings in the ditches and culverts were adequate to handle the runoff effluent.  Member Bartle asked about the impacts of the underground spring that bubbles up on the neighbor’s land.  Mr. Clark said that 150’ from where the spring surfaces the runoff ditch stops.  The applicant will need to regrade the area to channel the runoff away from the spring.  Member Bartle asked about the source of the spring.  Mr. Clark did not know, and it seems that the applicant did not know.  Mr. Clark felt that a study needed to done to determine that.  The large detention basin on the property will require a lot of regarding, clearing and ongoing maintenance.  In his experience, homeowners’ associations are not always responsive.  The banks on the basin need to be 6 feet high, and are now 2:1 slopes.  Storm water policies require 3:1 slopes.  This application will be subject to an EPA storm water permit, which it does not have.  The application also fails to include a construction sequencing plan to minimize impacts.

In terms of the LPOD special permit, Mr. Clark felt that the detention basin need Mohawk Brook Road was too close to the brook and that no treatment was being done in the basin because of the porous soils.  Dry basins do nothing for water quality treatment; a better option would be a micro pool or wetlands creation.  Member Coates asked what the difference in price would be between the plan as submitted and a plan where the road and storm water treatment are done right.  Mr. Clark did not feel correct measures increased the price much.  In fact, a shorter road decreases the impacts and the costs.
Town Counsel pointed out that the loop road was created so the individual driveways would be shorter and it would decrease the amount of impervious road surface.  Mr. Clark did not feel the driveways needed to be paved.  Member Plakun said that when the plan was devised, common driveways were discouraged because they create “choke points.”  Mr. Clark was all for common driveways because they decrease the impacts of road construction.

Member Bartle asked if only a couple lots sold, would the two new owners be the homeowners’ association, responsible for everything.  Mr. Kimmel explained that Mr. Bernstein would be part of the association until all the lots sold; if two lots sold, he would be responsible for 5/7 of the costs of the association.

Cris Irsfeld asked about the safety issues that arise from a loop road versus shared driveways.  He felt that shared driveways would increase the possibility of access issues.

Mr. Simons then spoke about the abutters’ request for a hydrologic study, which the Planning Board had initially been in favor of as well.  He reiterated that a study was necessary to find out the impacts and the location of limestone on the property.

Mr. Bronley Boyd asked if all the previous letters, reports, etc. from the first application could be included in this record.  After a brief discussion, the board agreed to include the minutes of the original public hearing in this record.

An unidentified gentleman asked if there was any limit to a dead end road length waiver for topographic conditions, for example, a condition that required a 5 mile road.  The board felt that engaging in this discussion was unhelpful to the issue at hand.  Member Plakun pointed out the rationale behind the length of road that was submitted.  When the board first reviewed the application, it had determined that at 500 feet, the road was in a topographically inhospitable spot.  The question was then raised that, if following the contour lines, how far out would the road have to go to get to a flatter spot on the property.  Once that length was determined, it was just redirected to end up farther back on the land.  Member Blau also said the question was asked if the topography necessitated a single road only, and if so, it would need to be longer than 500 feet.

Mr. Stephen Boyd asked if there was any sort of benchmark for a hydrologic study and was told no.

Mr. Kimmel then asked if he could take the floor to rebut some of the material that had been presented.  Chairman Rose pointed out that this was not allowed when the applicant made its presentation two weeks before.  After a short discussion, the board told Mr. Kimmel it would accept his rebuttal in writing.

The board discussed at length employing Town Counsel in drafting the language of any decision on this application, and it was determined that after a vote, Town Counsel would distribute drafts via email for comment, and then the board would sign off on a final draft on February 8th.  It was also decided that the next meeting for the continued hearing would be Jan. 25th, not the 11th as originally planned.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.