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

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

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

		<subject index="0" >June 14, 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
JUNE 14 MEETING

MINUTES

PRESENT:  All present.

Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.  Minutes of the May 24th were reviewed and Member Pitney moved to approve them as submitted.  Member Hobbs seconded, and the motion carried.

Carolyn Butler, representing Berkshire Theatre Festival, appeared before the Board for a sign permit review.  BTF currently has no permanent sign on Route 102 in front of the Main Stage building; it relies on rotating banners against the building to advertise its performances.  Ms. Butler submitted a sign permit application for a permanent sign hung between two posts.  She mentioned that although it would be made of a permanent material, the sign would only be up in season.  The Board could not find a specific section of the bylaw that would allow a sign for this sort of business in a residential zone.  There was also some concern about the total number of signs on the BTF property, since it has frontage on both Routes 102 and 7.  Member Plakun moved that the following recommendation be forwarded to the Selectmen:  that nothing in Section 6.8 of the bylaws seems to govern the area of the requested sign for a theatre use in a residential zone.  Under Section 6.8.1.d it appears the sign can not be placed closer than ½ of the front yard setback from the road.  Consideration might also be given to a banner sign instead of a permanent sign.  Member Pitney seconded.  Member Plakun then welcomed a friendly amendment that the Selectmen should also consider the overall total signage for BTF in rendering its decision.  With no further discussion, a unanimous vote was taken on the amended motion.

Philip Heller, Bob Daley and Bob Tynan appeared for the LPOD special permit public hearing for Daley at 4 Cove Lane in Stockbridge.  Chairman Rose opened the public hearing by requesting that Member Bartle read the public hearing notice into the record.  The Daleys want to pour a frost wall foundation under their existing house and to construct a dock.  The current house is a single family home with 97’ frontage.  It sits on the end of a peninsula, so the lake constitutes the side yards to the west and east.  The current house is 818 square feet, and no expansion of the home is planned.  It will be jacked up to put the foundation under it.  The dock requested is 25’ x 5’ and will only be in the water seasonally.  The Daleys have applied to the state for a dock permit, the Conservation Commission has issued an order of conditions, and the Selectmen recommend approval of the project.  No abutters appeared, and no written input was received.  Due to the fact that no new construction is planned, the house will not be any closer to the mean high water mark at the end of the project, and the lot coverage will not change.  There is a chance that a 12” diameter tree next to the house may have to be removed to install the foundation.  The lot is flat, so runoff and erosion are not issues.  The only excavation will be under the house, and the excavated materials will be used on site.  Member Hobbs asked if the above-mentioned tree was being replaced.  Mr. Tynan said it was not in the original plan but it could be done.  The Board pointed out that any cutting done with 35’ of the lake required a replacement cutting plan.  Mr. Daley said that the tree may be diseased anyway.  The dock requested is to replace an old dock that had been removed.  Member Plakun reviewed the construction timeline with the applicant, and found no issues.  Chairman Rose asked Mr. Tynan if in his professional judgment if he thought this project would have any adverse impact on public health, safety or the environment.  Mr. Tynan said no.  Member Plakun then moved that since the project seems to meet all standards of Section 6.5, and there seems to be no adverse effect on public health, safety or the environment, that the Board should approve the application as proposed for construction of a frost wall foundation and a dock with the following conditions:  1) that the Board receives a cutting plan for a suitable replacement tree including the cost, and bond to cover its replacement should it need to be removed from beside the house; and 2) that there will be no discharge or application of wastewater, pesticides, herbicides or fertilizer within the LPOD in perpetuity.  Member Blau seconded, and the vote was taken as follows:

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

Chairman Rose then opened the public hearing for the LPOD special permit public hearing for the Shack property at 9 Mahkeenac Rd.  Philip Heller, Bob Tynan, and Allan Clark appeared for Donald and Barbara Shack.  The application requests a 31’ 8” x 22’ addition to an existing single family house.  It sits on 2.3 acres and has 313’ of frontage.  The addition would hold a den and a bathroom on the first floor.  Currently, the side yard setback to the west is 64.8’; with the addition it would be 35.7’.  The height of the addition is 21’.  It would be no closer to the lake than the existing house.  The lot coverage will increase from 2.5% to 2.7%, and the total floor area will be 2.9%.  The Conservation Commission has issued an order of conditions and the Selectmen recommend approval of the application as submitted.  Bob Tynan explained that there would be no change in the grade or slope of the property.  A crawl space foundation is planned, and the soil excavated will be reused on site.  Gutters and splash breaks will be constructed on the house to catch runoff.  There are no trees to be cut, the lawn will remain as is, and the house will not be closer to the lake than what exists presently.  All demolition debris is being hauled out of town.  A brief review of the construction timing schedule revealed no issues.

The group then asked if Mr. Heller could give his 6.1.2.c special permit presentation on the project before they made their decision.  Mr. Clark explained that the house is connected to town sewer and has a well.  The proposed construction is not in greater nonconformity because it’s not getting closer to the lake.  The home is heavily screened from the road by vegetation, and a fence blocks the view from the neighbors.  The main house was built in the 1920s, and was added onto in the 1970s.  Member Plakun asked if the only way this house was nonconforming was because it was within 100’ of the lake, and was told yes.  The Board pointed out that language within Section 6.5 does not allow new construction within 100’ of the lake.  There was a brief discussion about what “new construction” meant, with the Board feeling it meant any construction that was not a demolition and reconstruction, the adding on of a second story, or the filling in of an existing deck.  Member Coates then moved to deny the LPOD special permit application on the basis that it requests new development within 100’ of the mean high water mark of the lake, so it does not meet all applicable standards of the bylaws.  Member Plakun seconded and the vote was recorded as follows:

Rose – no
Bartle – yes, because new development is requested within 100’ of the lake
Pitney - yes, because new development is requested within 100’ of the lake
Coates - yes, because new development is requested within 100’ of the lake
Blau - yes, because new development is requested within 100’ of the lake
Plakun - yes, because new development is requested within 100’ of the lake
Hobbs – no

Member Plakun then moved to recommend that the Selectmen deny the 6.1.2.c special permit because of new development within 100’ of the mean high water mark of the lake.  Member Bartle seconded, and the motion passed 5-2, with Members Rose and Hobbs voting against the motion.

Philip Heller then appeared for a 6.1.2.c special permit application for Myerson, also on Mahkeenac Rd.  This property is across the street from the lake, up on the hill, and is in the R-4 Zone.  The applicant is requesting a 300 square foot addition to enlarge a bedroom.  The owner is partially handicapped and can’t access her bedroom with a walker now.  The entire home is 540 square feet, and because of the interior layout it was impossible to enlarge the room without increasing the footprint of the house.  The lot is trapezoidal in shape, so the Myersons have a public hearing scheduled with the ZBA for a variance to build this addition because it will encroach on the east side property line.  The property is heavily wooded, and the lot to the east of them is vacant.  The shape and grade of this particular lot makes it very difficult to build anything without further encroaching on setbacks.  Member Plakun commented that this was the first application he had seen in a while that actually appeared as if soil, slope and topography was creating a hardship, not financial.  Joel Myerson, the applicant’s son, spoke briefly and explained that the addition was only to allow his parents to continue using their summer home.  The new square footage of the house would be 840 square feet, with only two bedrooms and one bathroom.  The Board was uncomfortable giving a recommendation before the ZBA ruled on the variance because they didn’t want to exert any undue pressure on the ZBA.  Member Coates asked if the only issue was that the application calls for the house to be closer to the lot line, and was told yes.  Member Plakun moved that since it appears as if the case for a variance is based on the required finding for granting a variance (soil, slope or topography), that the Board recommends approval of the application to the Selectmen under Section 6.1.2.c, assuming the variance is approved by the ZBA.  Member Rose seconded.  Member Hobbs asked again if this review could be continued until the ZBA ruled.  Member Plakun said he felt that this was the first application in a long time with a legitimate ZBA issue, and he felt it was reasonable to say that he would not oppose the special permit if the ZBA ruled in favor of the variance.  The Board voted 3-4 for Member Plakun’s motion.  Member Plakun then moved to reconsider the application on June 28th.  Member Bartle seconded, and the motion carried.

Chairman Rose volunteered to be the Board representative to a group being formed around the upcoming zoning bylaw review.  Someone from Conservation and the Selectmen will join him to create an RFP for a consultant for the project.

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