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

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

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

		<subject index="0" >March 22, 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
MARCH 22, 2005 MEETING

MINUTES

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

Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.  Minutes of the February 15, 2005 meeting were reviewed, and Member Pitney moved to approve them as submitted.  Member Bartle seconded, and the motion carried.

Mr. David Hellman and Mr. Marshall White appeared for a completeness review of a Definitive Subdivision Plan submitted by Alan Hirschberg for property off Route 183 in Stockbridge.  The applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision with a 350-foot long dead-end road servicing the two new lots.  Waivers requested include (but are not limited to) width of traveled and no sidewalks.  Chairman Rose explained that this was a review for completeness of contents only, not to review the quality of the application.  The group began by going through the required information in Section 4.202 of the Subdivision Regulations, and found that the application contained all required material.  Chairman Rose then led the review of the optional material that the Planning Board may require.  Marshall White indicated that the application contained topographic information in the area of the proposed road and for all wetland design.  The Planning Board did not feel that any further topographic information was required for this application.  The Board also did not feel that any additional soil type information was necessary.  Member Blau asked how long the cul de sac road was.  Mr. Hellman said it was 350 linear feet.  Member Bartle asked if there would be any LPOD issues with this application, and was told no.  He added that the Conservation Commission was in the midst of reviewing the application, and a site visit was planned in early April.  Member Bartle noticed that the Wetlands Delineation had been done in October, and asked how long that delineation was valid.  Mr. White explained that a Conservation Commission’s delineation is good for three years from issuance.  As the review continued, it was determined that an overall drainage plan was present, as well as a proposed street profile with grade and elevation information.  Mr. White also showed on Page 2 of the plan where existing wells and private water supplies were located with 400 feet of the property.  The applicant is confident that due to the number of wells in the area, wells on this land would not be a problem.  He then pointed out where the perc tests were located on each of the lots.  The Board then asked about delineating trees to be preserved within the road right of way.  Mr. Hellman explained that the proposed road would only be 16 feet wide, and no trees were going to be preserved.  Drainage plans would not make it possible to do so.  The Planning Board did not feel any other information about the natural characteristics of the site were required.  Finally, Chairman Rose asked if there was any input from the town’s emergency services, and was told it had not been submitted yet.  Member Blau moved to require that information, under Section 4.202.u of the Subdivision Regulations, and Member Bartle seconded.  The motion passed unanimously to require that information by the date of the public hearing on the application.  The Board then voted that this application was deemed complete, subject to the receipt of the information about town services accessibility in Section 4.202.u.  After a brief discussion, the public hearing was scheduled for April 26, 2005 at 7:35 p.m.  Mr. Hellman asked about a modified performance guarantee, since posting a bond was too expensive.  Chairman Rose suggested drafting something for Town Counsel to review.  In addition, Homeowner’s Association paperwork would need to be submitted for review at least a week before the public hearing.  The Board determined that review by an outside consultant would not be required for this application.

A representative from Hill Engineering appeared before the Board for a completeness review of a Definitive Subdivision Plan for property owned by Reinholt off Mahkeenac Road in Stockbridge.  The application proposes a four lot subdivision with a 500 linear foot dead end road.  The name of the road is proposed to be Cheyenne Drive, and has been approved by the town’s 911 coordinator.  The Board went through the required information in Section 4.202 of the Subdivision Regulations and found them all present.  They then reviewed the optional material.  The applicant had submitted topographic information around the area of the proposed road.  The Board noticed slopes seemed quite steep and were told the steepest slope was 9 ½ % grade.  Soil types on site were listed under Tab 2 of the application.  The application seemed to include all wetland and water areas.  Member Bartle asked about the stream on the property, and was shown it on the plan.  The stream will not be crossed, and the Conservation Commission has already filed an Order of Conditions on this project.  The overall drainage plan was noted as being present.  The Board was shown the proposed street profile and elevations.  Wells and private water sources within 400 feet of the property were noted on the plan, the information taken from Tri Town Health’s cards.  This project will be tying into the new town sewer line, so perc tests were not required.  No test wells have been done, but due to the number of wells in proximity of the land, water should not be an issue.  The applicant does not plan on preserving any trees within the right of way, and most cutting is already done on the site.  Input from town emergency services was not submitted, and the Board voted that this information would need to be submitted before the start of the public hearing.  Due in part to the steep slopes on the property, Member Bartle moved to require an outside consultant review the application, at the applicant’s cost.  Member Blau seconded and the motion carried.  With no further discussion, Member Blau moved to deem this application complete, subject to receipt of town services’ accessibility in Section 4.202.u.  Member Bartle seconded, and the motion carried.  The public hearing on this application was scheduled for May 10, 2005 at 7:35 p.m.

Chairman Rose informed the rest of the Board members that the Selectmen were willing to entertain a warrant article at the Annual Town Meeting to fund a full review of the town’s Zoning Bylaws and Subdivision Regulations up to $50,000.  The review should take at least a year, and will help close the loopholes in language and will help make them defensible against any potential future lawsuits.  Member Blau moved to recommend to the Selectmen adding this warrant article to the Annual Town Meeting, Member Bartle seconded, and the motion carried.  Chairman Rose mentioned a proposed warrant article that would put a moratorium on building permits for new residential construction for two years, but no one felt that was a good idea, so it was abandoned.

Chairman Rose told the Board that Town Counsel would like them to reschedule the continued public hearing on the proposed Subdivision amendments that was opened last fall as soon as possible.  He will contact Town Counsel to see if this hearing needs to be readvertised or not.  

Member Bartle brought up the ongoing master plan for the Austen Riggs property on Main St.  The group had been appearing for various special permits for parts of the project, but the Planning Board had never seen a complete presentation.  Member Bartle felt the Board should see the whole plan, as a courtesy.  He will draft a request to be sent to Austen Riggs.

Carl Sprague’s discussion about the Historic Preservation Bylaw was postponed until March 29th.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.