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

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

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

		<subject index="0" >July 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
JULY 26, 2005 MEETING

MINUTES

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

Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.  After a review of the minutes of July 12th, Member Bartle moved to approve them as submitted.  Member Blau seconded, and the motion carried.

At 7:35 p.m. Vice Chairman Pitney opened the LPOD Special Permit for the Cohen Hobbs application and Member Bartle read the public hearing notice into the record.  There was no abutter input and the Selectmen recommended approval of the project.  Shannon Boomsma, from White Engineering, presented the application.  Ms. Cohen Hobbs would like to resurface her gravel driveway with blacktop at 17 Mahkeenac Rd.  The driveway is within the Lake and Pond Overlay District.  The original application asked for an oil and stone topcoat that the Conservation Commission has asked to be omitted.  The oil and stone was not necessary, but was asked for to make the driveway look more natural.  Ms. Boomsma said that the applicant has a hard time navigating the current driveway in winter.  Member Plakun asked if this kind of project even came under the jurisdiction of the LPOD.  Ms. Boomsma explained that some regrading in the LPOD was necessary to channel water out of the garage.  The existing drainage is remaining because it is more extensive than what is required.  Member Coates asked if the velocity of the runoff would increase across blacktop, and was told that it actually would decrease.  In reviewing the contents of the plan, the application was found to be lacking a timing schedule and a description of the driveway material on the plan.  Ms. Boomsma was amenable to having the special permit decision rendered pending receipt of the additional information.  She also said that the excavated soil near the garage would be used on site.  The Board found that the application seemed to meet the requirements of the LPOD and that it was located and constructed in such as way as to decrease the impact on the surrounding environment.  With no further discussion, Member Plakun moved to approve the Cohen Hobbs LPOD Special Permit as amended for resurfacing her driveway with blacktop, pending receipt of a proper timing schedule and a revised plan that includes a description of the driveway material, and with the following conditions and restrictions: that there be no application or discharge of pesticides, fertilizers, wastewater or herbicides within the LPOD in perpetuity.  Member Bartle seconded and the motion was passed unanimously.

The Board then reopened the continued public hearing on the Reinholt Definitive Subdivision Plan for land off Mahkeenac Rd.  Lori Robbins and Darrin Harris appeared with Mr. Reinholt.  The Board reviewed a preliminary report from its independent consultant, Scott Horsley, which brought up several questions about the application.  Vice Chairman Pitney also read an email from Town Counsel into the record.  The main issue with the application is that the 500-foot road placed the cul-de-sac directly over an intermittent stream, and Mr. Horsley hoped that an alternative plan might be considered with a longer or shorter road.  Member Plakun went over the history of the application:  Mr. Reinholt had submitted two preliminary plans, one with a 500-foot road and one with a 650-foot road.  In December 2003, the Board voted to approve the 500-foot preliminary plan.  The Board agreed that the number of lots the applicant ultimately could create should not be a determinant factor in deciding to allow a longer or shorter road.  After reviewing the rest of Mr. Horsley’s report, the applicant was confident that the team could address his concerns while maintaining the 500-foot road length.  Member Blau asked if the road could be relocated further north, and was told no because it would then not meet slope requirements.  Member Coates asked if the Stockbridge regulations for capturing suspended solids in runoff were stricter than state or federal ones, and was told they were.  The application met state and federal regulations only.  Mr. Horsley also had questions about the availability of water.  Darrin Harris, from Hill Engineering, said that Tri Town Health had no issues with the proposed wells, and they expect to only draw 3,000 – 4,000 gallons a day for these houses.  Mr. Harris also felt that the suggested bioretension system for treating runoff was unnecessary, and that the proposed system fully treated surface runoff.  The 25-year storm regulation for the dentension basin was the norm; no one built for a 100-year storm.  Member Blau commented that the plan did not seem to address the options posed by Town Counsel (some combination of three elements – four lots, a 500-foot road, and minimal wetland impacts).  The Board asked the applicant team if they were willing to extend the 90-day deadline so that Mr. Horsley’s review could be completed and so that the applicant could work with Mr. Horsley to address his concerns.  If not, the Board would vote with the information in front of them.  Ms. Robbins submitted a letter extending the deadline until October 29, 2005.  The Board then continued the public hearing until a date to be determined in September or October.

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