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

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

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

		<subject index="0" >March 29, 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 29, 2005 MEETING

MINUTES

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

Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.   Minutes of the March 22, 2005 meeting were reviewed and it was found that an applicant’s name was misspelled.  Member Bartle moved to approve the minutes as amended, Member Coates seconded, and the motion carried.

NEJAIME 4.11.A.4.1 SPECIAL PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING
At 7:35 p.m. Vice Chairman Pitney opened the public hearing on the Special Permit application of Nabih and Marilyn Nejaime under Section 4.11.A.4.1, Multi-Family Dwelling for their building at 11 Park St.  Member Bartle, as Clerk, read the public hearing notice into the record.  Mr. Philip Heller represented the applicants.  The Selectmen’s officially recommendation was to approve the application as long as provisions were enforced to ensure that all parking would be off-street.  The Building Inspector required the installation of hardwire smoke detectors and an inspection of fire escapes.  The applicants received a variance in 1974 to convert a single family home into a multi-family dwelling with four units.  They believed they were getting permission to add four more units to the existing one unit, and proceeded over several years to make it a five-unit apartment building.  Recently the discrepancy was discovered, and they are applying for the special permit to remedy the situation.  The property has 50 feet of frontage on Park St., with 3,426 square feet of livable space in the building.  Mr. Heller pointed out that 6.10 allows for this if there is 4,000 square feet of living space, but the Nejaime lot does not meet minimum lot size.  However, this building has been a five-unit apartment house for 30 years with no adverse effects on the neighborhood.  No additional construction is planned, and the use is remaining the same.  The Nejaimes are adding additional parking out back, so that 6 spaces will be available for tenants; currently there are five.  With moderately priced apartments in such short supply in town, this project could be seen as being desirable to the public interest.  Park St. is a mixed used neighborhood already.  Mrs. Nejaime added that all tenants have been notified in writing that they face eviction if they are caught parking on the street.  Mr. Heller said that the issues raised by the Building Inspector had already been addressed, and submitted an invoice from an electrician for the smoke detection system work.  An inspector is scheduled to look at the fire escapes.

In reviewing the paperwork submitted with the application, Member Plakun asked for a clarification of the 1974 variance proceedings.  The actual variance application paperwork had been lost, so there is no record of what the Nejaimes actually applied for at that time.  Member Hobbs asked if a precedent was being set here.  Member Coates pointed out that the Nejaimes could come in today to convert this from a single family to a five-unit dwelling and get approved, so precedence is not an issue.  With no further discussion, Member Coates moved to close the public hearing, Member Plakun seconded, and the motion carried.  Member Coates then moved to approve the application with the following conditions:
1)	That the owner strictly enforces the tenants to park in the rear of the building and that a design for the frontage of the property will eliminate parking on the street;
2)	That the Building Inspector is satisfied that all units meet the code;
3)	That the owner abides by the conditions of the 1974 variance, with the exception of number of units, as follows:
a.	Parking for four automobiles shall be provided in the rear of the apartment house and within the confines of the property lines (now six).  The occupants as a group shall not be permitted to keep more than four (now six) cars at the Park St. address.  No on-street parking at any time.
b.	To facilitate the parking of cars and the driving of cars to the parking area, both existing rear porch structures shall be removed from the building.
c.	Each of the four apartments shall be limited to one full bathroom, for a total of four (now five).
d.	The owner shall comply with all local and State sanitary sewer rules and requirements to the satisfaction of all officials having jurisdiction.

Member Plakun seconded, and the Board voted as follows:

Pitney – yes
Coates – yes
Plakun – yes
Bartle – yes
Hobbs – yes

STOCKBRIDGE COFFEE 6.2.1.c SPECIAL PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING
At 8:00 p.m. Vice Chairman Pitney opened the Public Hearing on the Special Permit application of Stockbridge Coffee at 6 Elm St.  The applicants would like to obtain a special permit to waive the off-street parking requirements so they can expand their food selection to include soups, sandwiches and salads for take out.  Member Bartle, as Clerk, read the public hearing notice into the record.  The Selectmen did not make a recommendation on this application.

The applicants began by explaining that they needed to expand their offerings to keep the business open.  They pointed out Daily Bread Bakery as an example of a similar retail operation that also sold food to go.  Member Plakun explained that a sandwich is a natural extension of a food offering from a place whose main product was bread.  Daily Bread’s main source of revenue is the bakery items, with sandwiches and soups as a “side thing.”  His concern was that in this case, coffee would become less and less the main source of revenue as food became more and more prevalent.  He also said that what they were proposing was very close to the Town’s definition of “fast food”, which is not allowed in Stockbridge.  Member Coates added that he was concerned about what the business will morph into if soups and sandwiches are not enough to “keep the doors open.”  The applicants explained that they had already spoken to the Tri-Town Health about additional equipment needed to start preparing food on-site.  They would need to install a vegetable prep sink, would need to put in a grease trap in the existing three bay sink, and would need to purchase a new refrigerator and ice maker.  The Board felt that the application to waive off-street parking was premature when Stockbridge Coffee didn’t have permission yet to add food to their product line.  When asked how much parking they had assigned to them behind the building, the applicants didn’t know.  Members Coates and Plakun suggested that Stockbridge Coffee withdraw this application and apply to expand their food selection and waive the parking requirements at the same time.  They suggested coming back with an application that spells out exactly what food would be offered, how it is not fast food, how they would limit what the business morphed into in the future, and how much parking is available off-street to them now.  With no further discussion, Stockbridge Coffee withdrew its application without prejudice.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION BYLAW
Carl Sprague appeared before the Board for a discussion on draft bylaw language concerning the demolition or significant alteration of old buildings in town.  A task force has been working for almost two years on proposed language, to amend an existing town bylaw.  Member Hobbs began by saying that she felt that a criterion of 50 years is too new; there is very little housing stock that is younger than 50 years.  The Building Inspector, Ned Baldwin, spoke about the number of building permits he issued last year.  After a little calculating, the Board and the Building Inspector determined that about 90 projects last year had the potential of falling under this new bylaw.  The Building Inspector, and the Board, felt that this language would create an enormous amount of bureaucracy and work and the Town didn’t have the resources to administer it.  Member Plakun asked who makes the determination of a “substantial alteration” under this new language, and was told it would be the Building Inspector.  Mr. Baldwin replied that he couldn’t go out and measure every project to determine if it met the criteria; he would have to take the applicant’s word.  In terms of timeframes, this language made it difficult for the Board to meet the time deadlines when it only meets two times a month.  Since it is not a special permit process, it doesn’t follow the state statutes for timeframes.  The Board was also uncomfortable with how properties are determined to fall into this category.  The members could understand houses that were on the National Historic Register, or candidates for that designation, would obviously meet the standard.  It was the language that allows for the Planning Board and Historic Commission to decide if a property had broad historic or cultural significance that bothered members; this is a very subjective test, and probably not easily defended in court.  Member Plakun suggested that the Historic Commission finish its inventory of significant historic houses, and then use that list as the houses that need to be seen under this bylaw.  Member Plakun said that he couldn’t support this bylaw at town meeting as written, and other board members agreed.  He added that Mr. Sprague needed to do a superior job of educating the town residents if he hoped to get this passed in May.  Mr. Sprague invited the Board to the task force’s next meeting on April 17th at 5 p.m. at the Stockbridge Library.

LIPPMANN USE AND SIGN PERMIT REVIEW
Mr. John Lippmann and Ms. Molly Mast appeared for a Use and Sign Permit review for property at 10 Elm St. in Stockbridge, which is the old Katherine Meagher dress shop.  They plan to open a bookstore there in May.  They also hope to occasionally have author signings or acoustic musicians playing during business hours.  The Board cautioned that they would need to speak to the Selectmen about any licenses needed for entertainment, etc.  The Board found that this use is allowed in the B Zone under Section 4.11.A.24 of the Zoning Bylaws – Retail Establishment.  Mr. Lippmann said that there is parking available behind the building for their cars, with space for customers if necessary.  With no further discussion, Member Plakun moved to recommend approval of this application to the Selectmen with the suggestion that the Selectmen determine that there is adequate off-street parking.  Member Bartle seconded, and the motion carried.

The Board then reviewed the sign application.  The Lippmanns are requested two signs.  One would be 28” x 24” hanging at the location of an existing free standing sign on the front lawn; however, the pole would be replaced by two poles.  The second sign is 4’ x 1” and would hang from the bottom of the porch roof.  Under Section 6.8.3.d.1, multiple signs are allowed, but they must be hung flat against the building.  After a brief discussion, Member Plakun moved to recommend that the Selectmen consider approving the requested signs since they are within the allowed dimensional requirements, while noting that neither is attached flat against the building in conformance with Section 6.8.d.3.1.  Member Bartle seconded, and the motion carried.

With no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.