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

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

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

		<subject index="0" >May 24, 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
MAY 24, 2005 MEETING

MINUTES

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

Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.  The first order of business was the board reorganization and election of new officers.  Member Hobbs nominated Doug Rose as Chairman for another year, and Member Pitney seconded.  A unanimous vote was taken for him to retain his position.  Member Bartle nominated Gary Pitney as Vice-Chair and Member Hobbs seconded.  The board voted unanimously to approve that nomination.  Member Hobbs nominated Bob Bartle to continue as Clerk, and Member Pitney seconded.  The vote was unanimous on that nomination as well.  After a brief discussion, the nomination for representative to BRPC was tabled until all members were present.

Minutes of the May 10th meeting were reviewed and changes suggested.  Member Hobbs moved to approve then as amended, Member Pitney seconded, and the motion carried.

The Board had a brief discussion about last minute additions to a meeting agenda.  Currently, the agenda is officially closed on the Friday before a meeting, but that practice has been a bit flexible.  It was decided that the agenda will still be closed on Friday, and that any requests after that day need to be approved by the Chairman.

LAVAN HOUSE 6.2.6 PUBLIC HEARING:
At 7:35 p.m. Chairman Rose opened the Special Permit public hearing for the Lavan House at 13 Main St.  The application was made under Section 6.2.6 of the bylaws, Off-Street Parking.  Kevin Kinne, Chauncey Collins, Glen Valentine and Rob Hoogs represented the applicant.  The building has been owned by Austen Riggs since the 1930s and has primarily been used for office space.  In 1991, it got permission to create a step-down facility in the building, and it now houses four apartments.  Two apartments are for up to 10 patients, one apartment is reserved for a visiting scholar, and the last one is used for interns.  In its overall campus plan, Austen Riggs looked at this property and wanted to make some improvements that include cutting dying trees and reconfiguring the off-street parking.  As submitted, the parking lot will be within the 50-foot setback for off-street parking areas with more than five spaces.  Under Section 6.2.1.k of the bylaws, 16 beds requires eight off-street parking places.  The application calls for 13 spaces, with 10 on asphalt and 3 overflow spaces on dirt at the end of the parking area.  The new parking area is nonconforming because it does not meet the side or rear yard setbacks.  The entire parcel is 1.34 acres with 150’ of road frontage.  The current parking area has space for nine vehicles, with the closest point of the parking lot being seven feet from the side yard of the property.  The current configuration is not optimal because it requires diagonal parking with headlights facing the neighbors’, the Rutbergs’, house.  The new area would be further behind the house and facing away from the Rutberg property.  The landscaping plan calls for cutting down the dead trees between the Lavan House and the Rutbergs and replacing them with hedges.  Member Coates asked if the new parking area would further encroach on the Rutberg property.  Mr. Kinne explained that it would extend along the property line further but it wouldn’t be any closer.  Member Hobbs asked if a parking area could be constructed to meet all setbacks.  Mr. Hoogs said that it was physically possible, but that it would contain more impervious surface and it would be directly in the middle of the backyard.  Member Coates asked why the three overflow spaces weren’t being paved.  Mr. Hoogs said that they could be, but they would rather see occasional parking not include more impervious surface area.  Member Coates asked the difference in the amount of impervious surface between existing and proposed.  Mr. Hoogs estimated that there would be a 10% increase.  Mr. Hoogs added that drainage from the roof and the parking area was being diverted into dry wells.

The landscaping plan was then presented.  Hedgerows are planned along the entire driveway.  Sugar maples will replace the dying trees between Lavan House and the Rutberg property.  Out back, crabapples and lilacs will screen the parking area.  Yews are being added as a privacy screen between the Lavan House and the Ffrench property.  Lilacs are also being added out front.  The back lawn is being regarded and a bluestone terrace is being created.  Chairman Rose read a letter from the Ffrenchs stating they had no objections.  Mr. and Mrs. Rutberg appeared in person to give their input.  Mr. Rutberg began by informing the Board that the plan also calls for four 12-foot lightpoles in the parking lot, and he is concerned that they will illuminate his property as well.  He also felt the planting plan was very formal, and that the choice of hedge material along his property line was high maintenance.  He would prefer lilacs and viburnum.  He added that there has been some inconvenience since the change in use, and that moving the location of the parking area would be a big improvement.  As an aside, he also voiced his concern about the supervision of patients on the property.  Member Hobbs asked if the new lights would be on motion sensors or timers, and the applicant had no information about it.  There was a brief discussion as to the current light situation, which is two spotlights, and what would happen to them after the other improvements were made.  Chairman Rose asked if the applicant would be amenable to continuing the public hearing until such time as an agreement could be reached between the parties on both lighting and landscaping issues.  Member Hobbs also requested more information in writing on the future of the current spotlights.  It was agreed that the public hearing would be continued until June 14th.  [Since then, the applicant has requested a further continuance to a date to be determined.]

Lori Robbins appeared before the Board for a 6.1 and 6.3 Special Permit review for land at 26 East St.  It was owned by Shei’rah Foundation and has recently been sold to Alberni Holdings.  This group wants to make the apartment complex condominiums.  The lot in question has two houses on it, and one was converted to a duplex illegally in the 1980s.  The owners would like to get permission to keep the multifamily use.  There is enough acreage and frontage for both buildings, but one is too close to the road and there is more than one principle use on the lot.  Member Pitney asked if it was all academic because it has already been in existence for years.  The Board discussed their discomfort with people who have illegal uses on a property for years and don’t get caught, but when they try to sell the land they ask the Town to legitimize the illegal use so it can be sold.  With property values soaring, there is a large economic stake in having extra dwelling units on a property.  Member Hobbs then moved to recommend denial of the application to the Selectmen because it does not meet the required findings of Section 6.3.6.a & b.  Member Coates seconded, and the motion carried.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.