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

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

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

		<subject index="0" >February 15, 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
FEBRUARY 15, 2005 MEETING

MINUTES

PRESENT:  All present.

Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.   Minutes of the Feb. 8th meeting were reviewed and amendments suggested.  Member Plakun moved to approve them as amended, Member Bartle seconded, and the motion carried.

At 7:35 p.m. Chairman Rose reopened the continued public hearing on the Stone Ridge LPOD Special Permit application and Definitive Subdivision Plan.  He suggested the following protocol for the evening: Scott Horsley, the town’s consultant, would give his presentation; Town Counsel would give his presentation; Mr. Peter Berle would have a few minutes to speak; Mr. Richard Simons could make a closing statement; finally, Mr. Kimmel could make a closing statement for the applicant.

Mr. Horsley began by distributing copies of his written report.  He saw this application as a low density development.  After reviewing several driveway and road options, he also determined that this option had the least impact on the site.  He did say that it was a challenging site for a subdivision, and was concerned initially with the feasibility of locating septic systems.  At his suggestion, the applicant was able to successfully submit the engineering plan for a designed septic system on the most challenging site.  Mr. Horsley was also concerned with the proximity of the well sites to the septic sites.  Again, he asked the applicant to maximize the distance between the wells and the septics, and the applicant complied.  As modified, the plan calls for at least 200’ between septics and wells.  He suggested that the Planning Board revise the Subdivision Regulations to require a minimum 200-foot distance between water sources and septic systems to protect drinking water supplies.

The next issue he had was with the original stormwater management plan.  He said that on Feb. 11th he had requested another modification to the proposed detention system, which the applicant complied with.  The original plan met the state regulations, which requires that 80% of suspended solids be filtered out of runoff.  Stockbridge’s regulations requires 100% to be removed within the LPOD.  To do this, a bioretention  system will be implemented.  Member Coates mentioned that in earlier testimony the Board was told that the applicant would need to submit Pollution Prevention Plan with the EPA; why was that not required here.  Mr. Horsley said that an EPA will be needed before construction starts, but that Stockbridge’s regulations are stricter than the federal requirements.  He suggested that the requirement of an EPA plan, also approved by the Conservation Commission, could be a condition of approval of the subdivision and special permit.  Member Coates asked if any other town has ever required the EPA plan prior to permit approval, and Mr. Horsley could not think of one in his experience.

Member Plakun asked for a bit of clarification in the language in Mr. Horsley’s report.  As originally submitted, the application was not in compliance with the LPOD regulations because stormwater and pollutants were being discharged into the LPOD.  Now that the model bioretention system has been submitted, will it meet the LPOD requirements of “no pollutants” being discharged into the LPOD?  The report only says that the new system is “preferable.”  Mr. Horsley said that the language was a misnomer, and that the new system should keep the project in compliance.  Member Bartle pointed out the success of the system depended entirely upon regular maintenance, and Mr. Horsley agreed.  Member Blau asked if these types of systems have been successful in the past.  Mr. Horsley assured the Board that this type of system has worked in dozens of sites in MA alone.

The group then reviewed Mr. Horsley’s response to Mr. Clark’s letter in January.  They spent some time discussing the proposed monitoring program for the stormwater management basins.  Mr. Horsley explained that this program goes beyond the state regulations, but cautioned the Board that this is not water quality monitoring.  What he proposes is to monitor the plant and vegetation growth to ensure suspended solids are being removed from the runoff in the system.  Chairman Rose asked who was usually responsible for the monitoring, and was told it usually fell to the applicant.  The monitoring should be done twice a year.  Member Coates asked about the language of the stormwater prevention plan, indicating that “at a minimum” had been used.  He said that the Board did not want things to be done at a minimum, it wanted best practices used, and what was Mr. Horsley’s advice on that.  Mr. Horsley replied that “at a minimum” would be stricken from his final monitoring plan.  Member Coates also had concerns that the Town did not have the expertise on any of the volunteer boards to properly review the stormwater prevention plan, and that maybe an outside source should be found to do so.

Member Bartle asked about the underground stream that fed the brook on the Radkai property, and if blasting would affect it.  Mr. Horsley said that he had looked at the stream relative to the proposed blasting areas and he didn’t believe it would affect either the spring or the stream.  He added that this low density project would not interrupt the recharge of this stream from the groundwater runoff, which is where the majority of the water source comes from.  If it was shopping mall going in, with large amounts of impervious ground cover, he would be more concerned.  He didn’t feel that a hydrogeologic study was necessary because blasting more commonly opens up fractures in the rock and adds water to the stream.  Member Plakun asked if Mr. Horsley felt the radius of the blasting impact was too far from the spring to have an impact, and Mr. Horsley agreed.  Member Bartle asked if Mr. Horsley had any idea how much blasting would be needed.  Mr. Horsley said that blasting was never an exact science, that only ranges can be calculated until blasting actually starts.  Member Plakun asked if the Board could limit how close blasting could come to the stream.  Mr. Horsley was uncomfortable coming up with a distance because he is not a blasting expert.

Town Counsel Ray Miyares then gave his presentation on the application.  His report went through the town’s regulations, and gave language recommendations on any waivers or conditions the Board may want to use in its decision.  The first was for the waiver of the minimum street jog of 125 feet.  Town Counsel felt that the impact of this subdivision is a bit less because of its low density.  Member Bartle pointed out that nothing speaks to the amount of traffic accessing the site during construction, and Mr. Miyares agreed.  Town Counsel then recommended that if the Board was willing to grant the waiver for the minimum centerline radii, a condition should be imposed that traffic calming devices be used to keep the speed limit on the road to 20 mph.  The applicant was also asking for a waiver of the 1% grade at intersections.  Town Counsel said the application can be approved without granting this waiver.  The next waiver was the length of the dead end street.  While this street is shorter than the original application, it could be shorter still.  Town Counsel suggested that the Board measure this road against the other practical options.  It was important to look at the project by keeping the building envelopes constant and then figuring out how to access those building envelopes.  The other waivers included the finish of the traveled way, the makeup of the permanent markers, and the lack of sidewalks, which the Board quickly reviewed.

Mr. Peter Berle then spoke as a concerned abutter, as the President of the Stockbridge Land Trust, and as a nationally known conservationist.  He urged the Board to deny the application, based especially on the waiver of the 500-foot dead end road.  The Subdivision Regulations allows the Board to grant the waiver, but it is not required to do so due to topographic reasons.  The applicant talks about the necessity of the road, but who defines necessity?  Mr. Bernstein can still get economic value from his land by building just one house on the site.  (The Planning Board can not deny an applicant from any economic value of a piece of land.)  Mr. Berle then spoke about the conditions being recommended for the project by Town Counsel.  He asked the Board to consider if the kinds of conditions that would need to be imposed were appropriate.  This application could be the beginning of no limits to the kinds or amounts of conditions imposed on an applicant.  He talked about how his family had spent considerable resources permanently protecting the land across the river from Mr. Bernstein’s property.  He found it ironic that his conservation practices had increased the value of Bernstein’s land by creating a permanently protected viewshed for his homes.  He asked the Board to just uphold the standards that the existing town regulations called for.

Mr. Richard Simons followed with a closing statement on behalf of the abutters.  He pointed out that the developer does not have the right to develop this plan as submitted, which is how the plan has been presented in his opinion.  To construct this plan, the developer needs various waivers from the Board.  There were three waivers that especially concerned the abutters.  The first was the 125-foot jog.  This waiver creates a dangerous intersection, and jeopardizes public safety.  The waiver for the centerline radii again creates a dangerous situation.  The applicant alone has stated that he has to use the old logging road; he is not required to do so.  A 20 mph speed limit is truly not feasible, not matter what traffic calming devices are employed.  The third is the dead end road length waiver.  The 500-foot requirement is based on strong transportation reasons; any waiver needs to be purely for topographic reasons, not to increase the economic benefit of the land.  Long dead end roads can impact public safety if it is blocked near the entrance and access is denied.  He finished by urging the Board to use the Master Plan as a guide in its decision, which states the Town wants to maintain existing land use patterns; limit deforestation; maintain open space; and protect water resources.  This application does none of these.

Mr. Kenneth Kimmel then spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He reminded the Board that this application is already an exercise in compromise, and the Board needs to determine where it meets the regulations and where it doesn’t.  He said that the waivers requested and the topographic rationale did not constitute a “necessity” – what is in the public interest needs to be the standard for “necessity”.  This application is in the public interest because it does the least amount of damage to the site and it cuts the least amount of trees.  He pointed out that neither Mr. Clark nor Mr. Horsley felt that the road jog or centerline radii waivers made the project unsafe.  The environmental impacts have been greatly reduced, and state-of-the-art technology was being implemented.

With no further discussion, Member Bartle moved to closed the public hearing, Member Plakun seconded, and the vote was recorded as follows:

Rose – yes
Blau – yes
Pitney – yes
Coates – yes
Plakun – yes
Bartle – yes
Hobbs – yes

Member Plakun then moved to go into Executive Session to review the status of pending litigation, Member Hobbs seconded, and the vote was recorded as follows:

Rose – yes
Blau – yes
Pitney – yes
Coates – yes
Plakun – yes
Bartle – yes
Hobbs – yes

Town Counsel reminded the Board that no deliberation of this application could occur behind closed doors.  The Board went into Executive Session at 9:10 p.m.

At 9:20 p.m., the Board voted as follows to leave Executive Session:

Rose – yes
Blau – yes
Pitney – yes
Coates – yes
Plakun – yes
Bartle – yes
Hobbs – yes

The Board then discussed motions for the application.  After talking about the merits of a motion to deny versus a motion to approve the subdivision application, Member Plakun suggested approving the application and accepting as conditions all those proposed by Scott Horsley and Town Counsel, except to eliminate any through a subsequent vote.  The Board felt that was too cumbersome a process, so Member Hobbs moved to deny the application for the following reasons:

1.	The Plan is not in conformance with the design standards of Section 5 of the Stockbridge Subdivision Regulations, and specifically not in conformance with:
a.	Section 5.101, paragraph 5 (prohibiting street jogs with centerline offsets of less than 125 feet, rather than 85 feet as proposed); 
b.	Section 5.101, paragraph 6 (setting the minimum centerline radii of curved streets as 200 feet, rather than 35 feet as proposed); 
c.	Section 5.103 (limiting the grade of a street within 50 feet of a street intersection to 1.0%, rather than 3.0% as proposed); and
d.	Section 5.104 (limiting the length of dead end streets to 500 feet unless a greater length is necessitated by topography or other local conditions, rather than 1790 feet as proposed). 
2.	The Plan is not in conformance with all other provisions of the Stockbridge Subdivision Regulations, and specifically not in conformance with:
a.	Section 6.103 (requiring all parts of the traveled way to be brought to a finished grade with a width of at least 24 feet, rather than 14 and 20 feet as proposed); 
b.	Section 6.132 (requiring permanent monuments to be of 3000 p.s.i. reinforced concrete or granite, rather than re-capped bar as proposed); and
c.	Section 6.15 (requiring curbing and sidewalks on one or both sides of the streets, rather than omitting these features as proposed). 
3.	Waiver of the provisions specified above, pursuant to section 7.10 of the Stockbridge Subdivision Regulations, is not in the public interest and is inconsistent with the Subdivision Control Law because such a waiver does not conform with the principles of the Stockbridge Master Plan; does not promote public safety, health or welfare; and does not protect the environment.
 
Member Bartle seconded the motion, and the vote to deny was recorded as follows:

Bartle – yes
Hobbs – yes
Coates – yes
Plakun – no
Pitney – no
Blau – yes
Rose – yes

The Board then took up the matter of the LPOD Special Permit.  Chairman Rose asked if the applicant would like to withdraw the application without prejudice before a vote was called for, since this was a bit of a moot point.  Mr. Kimmel said the applicant had no intention of withdrawing.  With no further discussion, Member Bartle moved to deny the Stone Ridge LPOD Special Permit application for the following reason:

that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed work will meet all of the Special Permit standards applicable within a Lake and Pond Overlay District.  Specifically, the Applicant failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that its proposed land use activity within the LPOD will be located, designed, constructed and operated such that it will have no significant adverse impact on the environment, public health or safety and, in particular, that it will not result in unsafe or unhealthful conditions, erosion or sedimentation, surface water or groundwater pollution, or degradation of fish and wildlife habitat, as required by section 6.5.9.  The Board further found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed land use activity would not result in the discharge of 
            pollutants within the LPOD, and that the activity was therefore prohibited by 
            section 6.5.5.  

Member Hobbs seconded, and the vote to deny was recorded as follows:

Bartle – yes
Hobbs – yes
Coates – yes
Plakun – no
Pitney – no
Blau – no
Rose – yes

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.