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

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

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

		<subject index="0" >October 11, 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
OCTOBER 11, 2005 MEETING

MINUTES

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

ABSENT:  Paul Coates

Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.  Minutes of the September 27th meeting were reviewed and Member Bartle moved to approve as circulated.  Member Hobbs seconded, and the motion carried.

Chairman Rose mentioned to the Board that Member Coates is contemplating stepping down, as his schedule does not allow him to be at many meetings; for example, he has not been at a meeting since July, and won’t be able to attend at least one meeting in November.  He has asked the Board’s opinion, and after a short discussion, it was decided that he needed to make this decision on his own.

Chairman Rose also announced to the audience that the continuation of the Lavan House Special Permit public hearing had been further continued until October 25th because the proper quorum could not be present.

At 7:35 p.m. Vice Chairman Pitney reopened the public hearing on the Shack LPOD Special Permit application.  Chairman Rose recused himself since he was not present at the start of the public hearing in August.  At that meeting, the Board had asked for Town Counsel’s opinion on whether renovations could occur within 100’ of the mean high water mark, seemingly going against Section 6.5.10 of the bylaws.  Chairman Rose read Town Counsel’s memo into the record because it was sent to him directly.  In it, Town Counsel said that if a house is within 100’ of the mean high water mark, it then becomes preexisting non-conforming and further triggers a 6.1.2 special permit.  If it is outside of the 100-foot mark, it would only require an LPOD special permit, provided it met all other zoning standards.  The Selectmen have already approved the 6.1.2 special permit.  Mr. Philip Heller, representing the Shacks, quickly reviewed the application again.  The Shacks want to construct a 700 square-foot addition to their home at 9 Mahkeenac Rd.  It will not be closer to the lake or the side yard setbacks.  Mr. Marshall White went over the drainage plan again.  Member Hobbs asked if the drainage is designed to hold up under a 100-year event like the storm the previous weekend.  Mr. White said yes because the project is not adding much runoff volume except from the new roofline that is draining into a splash drain.  There is no driveway work planned, and no trees being cut within 35 feet of the lake.  There is a minimal amount of excavation being done.  With no further discussion, Member Pitney moved to close the public hearing, Member Hobbs seconded and the public hearing was closed.

Member Plakun then went through the required findings with the applicant, and found that the application appeared to meet all standards of the bylaws, and was designed so that it would have minimal impact.  Member Hobbs asked about the timeline that was submitted originally; due to the earlier denial and the new review process, it is inaccurate.  Mr. White modified the timing schedule and immediately submitted it for the record.  Member Pitney then moved to approve the application with the modified timeline because it seems to meet all application sections of the bylaws, with the condition that there is no discharge or application of wastewater, pollutant, pesticides, herbicides or fertilizer within the LPOD in perpetuity.  Member Hobbs seconded, and the motion carried.

Shaun Leary appeared again before the Board for the continuation of the Kampoosa Clearing special permit public hearing.  Mr. and Mrs. David Heinrich want to demolish an existing single family house and replace it with a two family house with a smaller footprint.  At issue is that the entire property is within the LPOD and that there are two principal uses on the property:  the house and the former motel, which is now apartment units.  The current house is 1,950 square feet; the new one will be 1,280 square feet.  The special permit for two uses on one lot is before the Selectmen now.  There technically is enough land to split the parcels, but the Heinrichs don’t want to do that if they don’t have to.  Mr. Mike Koolig from Berkshire Engineering reviewed the proposed drainage plan and driveway modifications.  In August, the applicants had asked if the driveway could be paved.  After discussions with the Board, they have decided to go with gravel or airport mix.  Member Plakun reviewed the Acreage Requirements for both uses, and found that a two family house requires a minimum of 3 acres.  The land is 6.53 acres.  The discussion then ensued about acreage requirements for a motel.  Member Plakun asked when the motel became apartments and if there is a Use Permit or Special Permit on file for that change.  Ms. Leary did not know, but said the applicants had purchased it as apartments.  Member Plakun then commented that if the conversion was lawful, it seemed like the applicant was trying to get a “second bite” out of an apple by increasing the use intensity on the nonconforming lot.  If the conversion was unlawful, the applicants will need 12 acres to do everything they want.  Ms. Leary asked if the Heinrichs could put up a single family house, and was told they could and they might not even need a special permit beyond the LPOD to do it.  The Board also mentioned that the applicants could go to ZBA for relief, but the application does not seem to meet hardship requirements of soil, slope or topography.  Ms. Leary pointed out that the second unit in the house would add needed housing in town, but the Board wasn’t convinced it was a valid enough argument.  Ms. Leary then asked if she could withdraw the 4.11 Special Permit application without prejudice.  The Board voted unanimously to allow her to do so.  Ms. Leary then asked if the Board could vote on the LPOD application; if the applicant decided to build a one family house they would not have to come back for the LPOD.  The Board was very wary of approving the LPOD without seeing the plans, including the interior floor plans, of the single family house.  This way there will be a clear paper trail of a single family home being approved and built.  Ms. Leary then asked if the public hearing could be continued until Oct. 25th so she could confer with her clients, and the Board agreed.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.