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

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

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

		<subject index="0" >December 7, 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 7, 2004 MEETING
MINUTES

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

Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.  Minutes of the Nov. 23rd meeting were reviewed, and Member Pitney moved to approve them as submitted.  Member Hobbs seconded, and the motion carried.

Mr. David Hellman, Mr. Brian Cassella, and Mr. Marshall White appeared on behalf of the Hirschberg family, who has submitted a Preliminary Subdivision application for land owned on Route 183 on Stockbridge Bowl.  The property is about 11.5 acres, and the Hirschbergs would like to create two new building lots.  A 383 linear-foot dead end road with a cul-de-sac is proposed.  The plan as submitted indicates a 40-foot wide roadway; however, the applicant plans to request for a road width of less than 24 feet, which will require a waiver from the subdivision regulations.  Mr. Hellman was encouraged to find out what the road widths were for other similar subdivision roads, both in the area and around town, so that he might convince the Board a narrower road was appropriate in this case.  The road will service the two new lots only.  Mr. Hirschberg has a deeded right of way through an abutting property for his existing driveway.  The property has frontage in the R-2 Zone, and the land closest to the lake is in the R-4 Zone.  Subsequently, Lot 1 will conform to R-2 requirements and Lot 2 and Lot 3 will conform to R-4 requirements.  Lot 1 does have 320 feet of road frontage.  The Board questioned why Lot 2 has such a strange configuration, including a small “jut out” along the boundary with Lot 3.  Mr. White explained that they found some ledge on Lot 2, which made perc testing difficult.  The “jut out” includes the area for the septic system for Lot 2.  Member Plakun read through the subdivision regulations to determine if the application was complete.  He asked about the abutters, and why all abutters within 500 feet were not listed on the plan.  Mr. Hellman did not think it was necessary for a Preliminary review; Board secretary confirmed that all property owners within 500 feet had been notified of the application.  Two abutters, Don Deno and Joan Cohen, were present in the audience.  Mr. Deno questioned how the frontage of the new lots had been calculated.  Mr. Casella said that he had only used frontage on land where it met the 40’ required frontage setback, so technically there was more frontage than listed.  The Board then reviewed the definition of “lot frontage” and determined Mr. Cassella had calculated it accurately.  Mr. Deno also questioned the wetlands listed on the property, although he realized that the Conservation Commission would be reviewing the application as well.  Mr. White explained the buffer zone line on the plan.  Member Plakun felt that as submitted the plan appeared to be doable, because it has the required frontage, sideyard setbacks, etc., and Member Bartle agreed.  However, Member Plakun did not think the application was complete because it was missing all abutters within 500 feet on the plan.  Member Bartle asked if the Hirschbergs planned to continue using their driveway right of way, and was told yes.  Member Plakun asked Mr. White to show him where the LPOD delineation was on the plan.  Mr. Hellman mentioned that besides the planned road width waiver, he also intended on asking for waivers for property markers.  He said the applicant planned on posting a performance bond for infrastructure.  Due to the fact that there was a question about the completeness of the application, Mr. Hellman requested that the Board allow him to withdraw the application without prejudice, and the Board agreed to allow him to do so.

Mr. Hellman then appeared with Joan Cohen for a 6.1.2 review for 84 Interlaken Road.  The Cohens had received approval two times for an LPOD and a 6.1.2 special permit to renovate their home on Stockbridge Bowl.  They now would like to renovate the existing boathouse, with no change to the height or footprint.  The building is 75 years old and is in need of repair.  The plan calls for the removal of aluminum siding, a new roof and a new railing on the existing deck.  The boathouse now includes a room, a fireplace and a bathroom.  The Cohens plan to paint it brown with dark green trim to match the house.  At the suggestion of the Conservation Commission, they are building a temporary deck around the boathouse with screening to prevent debris from falling into the lake during renovations.  Member Plakun asked why this wasn’t an LPOD application.  Mr. Hellman explained that it was routine, ordinary maintenance and was exempt.  He said he had spoken at length with the Building Inspector and Town Counsel about it.  Member Plakun opined that a temporary deck with screening didn’t seem like “ordinary” and asked if the Building Inspector was aware of that portion of the plan when he reviewed the original application.  Mr. Hellman was unsure.  With no further questions or discussion, Member Plakun moved to recommend to the Selectmen that the application appears to be not more detrimental to the neighborhood, and to recommend approval.  However, given the extensive temporary decking over Stockbridge Bowl, the Board asks that the Selectmen verify with the Building Inspector that he was aware of this decking when he determined an LPOD special permit was unnecessary.  Member Bartle seconded, and the motion carried.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.